Driving - A Right or A Privilege 

Driving is an essential element to life and living today for many citizens, in particular those who can only provide all or part of the elements of sustenance of life and living. Dr. Charles Taylor eminent Social Scientist and Philosopher, resident lecturer at McGill University with accreditation and honours too numerous to mention here expresses it best in his Massey Lecture series The Malaises of Modernity, in particular in his discourse on the second of the three malaises. In a technological world the lives of all have been radically altered by a social evolutionary element which he chooses to refer to as Instrumental Reason (that the institutions and structures of industrial-technological society severely restrict our choices) to the point where

“ The society structured around instrumental reason can be seen as imposing a great loss of freedom, on both individuals and the group – because it is not just our social decisions that are shaped by these forces. An individual lifestyle is hard to sustain against the grain. For instance the design of some modern cities makes it hard to function without a car, particularly where public transport has been eroded in favour of the private automobile.”

The idea of driving as a privilege is an anachronism. Indeed the use of an an automobile or other vehicle, for most, in some fashion or another, is an outright necessity for survival especially concerning those who live in a rural setting. The concept of driving as a privilege is outdated, a reality made so by the societal context within which we all presently reside. It belongs in an era long since passed into history. It is long overdue to become a right. Indeed it is an ipso facto right requiring only official recognition and the legal status it deserves. To refer to it as a privilege rather than a right is a purely arbitrary decision which serves as a convenience for those proponents of extremism where the legislation governing dui/dwi are concerned. In this case such a definition allows policy makers to skirt the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Sanctions such as, for example, license suspensions for reasons which may have nothing to do with legal issues may be given the label "Administrative."  Such a tag means that they may pull an end run around an individual's rights.  It also means that the terms of the sanctions may have elements so ambiguous as to be subject to question by those in the legal area entrusted to scrutinize such policies involved with the rights of  the individual.  Clearly this is long overdue as an initiative which requires immediate rectification. 



Just to help illustrate the point:



In regard to the issue of DUI the Supreme Court has supported the inclusion of sections 253, 254/2/3, and 258(1)(a) of the criminal code.   This is in direct contravention to section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section guarantees that a person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
 There is a strong suspicion in this author's mind that there is a neo-prohibitionist movement within the ranks of the special interest groups responsible for the lion's share of the lobbying special. It is subtle and long range but nevertheless, a real one. But that is another matter I will deal with in another post. The first key is to help create public awareness of these issues. After all, these groups such as "Arrive Alive" seem to have been working very hard to create a climate of negative optics towards the consumption of alcohol. It might very well be that driving is a convenient vehicle. Also the concept of cherished family members being lost and a family in tears is a powerful visual tool. It generates powerful emotion and it is within this climate that these groups find it easier to lobby for these outrageous excesses. Note the following facts not generally known to the general public:  
"The term neo-prohibitionist is usually used critically to describe groups or individuals, rather than by the groups or individuals themselves. For example, Candy Lightner, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), eventually left the organization in anger and has since gone on to criticize it as neo-prohibitionist, stating that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".[1] Lightner was criticizing MADD's leaders who had called for the criminalization of all driving after drinking any amount of alcoholic beverage. The epithet has also been applied to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation by its critics due to their stance on several alcohol-related issues."

Care and Control (Balance of Probability)

Care or control

  A person does not need to be actually driving or operating their vehicle to be charged with a drinking and driving offense in Canada. It is also possible to be charged and convicted if a person is found to have in his/her possession the means to start a vehicle and be in or near the seating of the vehicle required to do this.  In the legal vernacular this is expressed as being in care or control of his/her vehicle.  Should the person exhibit signs of exceeding the "warn" range or the .08 level of alcohol in the body it is assumed that in every case the person does fully intend to actually start the vehicle and set it into motion.  This is not considered to be a speculative assumption but a hard fact.  There are no exceptions.  Should the individual be merely "sleeping it off" before seeking out motel accommodation the assumption "will" (not "may") apply.  The justification for this is the legal concept (originally to be found in civil law) of "Balance of Probability." In this case the Probability is the "Actus Reus" and the "Mens Rea" where the Highway Traffic Act is concerned.  The conviction and punishments which accompany a conviction of DUI, will be as harsh and all serious repercussions will apply.

 

Under section 11(d) of the criminal code any citizen is considered innocent until proven guilty. Consideration involves 2 concepts, Mens Rea and Actus Rea: Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act," accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.
In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. However, if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability as well as the measure of damages payable to the plaintiff.
Therefore, mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the actus reus
Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now this of course is great to protect all for whom it would simply be easier to grab and charge. This protects the public from such issues as police not be arresting the guy with the hoodie hanging around the bank because they were positive that he was going to rob it. However our Charter of Rights and Freedoms has one weakness in it, Section 1.

“Section 1 is used every time a Charter infringement is argued. If a case involves three separate sections of the Charter, a section 1 analysis would occur after each section is argued. For example,if sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Charter are argued as being infringed, the government would have to argue a separate section analysis for each. In addition, the government must satisfy all of the steps in the Oakes Test.
THE OAKES TEST
The Oakes Test is a legal test created by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case R. v. Oakes (1986). R. v. Oakes provided the Court with the opportunity to interpret the wording of section 1 of the Charter and to explain how section 1 would apply to a case. The result was the Oakes Test –a test that is used every time a Charter violation is found.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada has identified specific situations where the government does not have to impair a Charter right as little as possible. The Court has found that in some situations it may be appropriate to take a deferential approach to government action. This means that the Court takes a flexible approach to the minimal impairment portion of the Oakes Test. Situations where deference may be given often occur where the legislature has to balance multiple interests. The Court has held that deference may be appropriate in situations where a legislature is better suited to weigh the evidence and policy considerations, and also, where the legislature has shown it has exercised judgment within a range of reasonableness. In other words, the Court acknowledges that the legislature, an elected body, is often in a better position to respond to the needs of Canadians. “
http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content...OJEN_Oakes.pdf

Now to simplify: In order to pick and choose any areas in the Charter where legislators feel have reached a level of popular support or seems to be politically correct, the Supreme court can back up the legislators to impose any exceptions to a section of the Charter. The Oakes Test despite the appearance of propriety and moral justification is simply a construct, a tool to justify legislators modifying the precepts of the Charter for any justification they may espouse. Under the Oakes Test the Supreme Court assumes such a test will exempt legislation from being held strictly to the spirit of the Charter.  Now things like hate speech would engender a public outcry so they are careful to avoid such areas. Not so for dui.
Now, in civil law, there is a concept referred to as "balance of probability" which is sometimes considered and allowed. And quite rightly as criminal and civil issues differ in a number of fundamentally different aspects. Where dui is concerned, the optics of drinking alcohol have been put into such a negative light that this process was employed to introduce this qualifier into the criminal code. What it means here for section 11(d) is that in some cases, if it looks like there might be even the slightest probability of an individual driving drunk in the future with a BAC of .08 (under certain circumstances) then that is the same as actually driving off into traffic drunk and posing a risk to other drivers. In one case a young fellow, rather than risk the lives of others decided to sleep it off in his car. He had a sleeping bag, got into it. And after putting the keys into the ignition to get some quiet music on the radio, drifted off to sleep. Police Officers examining vehicles found him this way. He was charged with dui. He was not driving but the new twist to the dui law determines that there was a probability that he was going to drive off drunk under the influence. This Care and Control law is such that being on the front seat of the automobile, over the limit and with keys in his/her possession warrants a dui charge, a subsequent conviction being replete with the penalties described above for second time offenders. Now there are members of society who support this brainless kind of thing unconditionally. This is how powerful special interest groups have become in influencing the opinions of the general public. This is issuing a criminal conviction on the basis of what someone might do – not what they have actually done. Pretty scary stuff.  

And actually this concept of balance of probability has manifested itself, if not in the criminal code, then in the spirit itself, of what may be termed Administrative Initiatives.  In Ontario, an individual may present him/herself to a hospital as a first step in leaving, what they may believe to be, the excess consumption of alcohol behind them or perhaps for a liver check due to their concern.  Now this individual was not stopped by police or in an accident of any kind.  In other words there are none and never have been any charges related to DUI.  That said, doctors are asked to report any diagnosis of alcohol dependency to the Medical branch of the Ministry of Transport.  On the balance of probability that this individual will, however, in the future, drive drunk and pose a risk in public, the drivers license  of that individual is suspended for up to one year.  Further, should an individual who does not have a drivers license, present themselves in the same fashion, a record is kept and should they ever present themselves for a license in the future (no matter how much time has elapsed or whether they have long ago completed a rehab program) they will be subject to similar sanctions before being able to apply.  The difference here is that the sanctions imposed here are arbitrarily defined as administrative not convictions under The Highway Traffic Act.  In this way there are no protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Just few decades ago, if anyone would have told me that, we might suffer penalties under the law, not for what we have done but for what we might do in the future,  I would never have believed it.  How could we ever have arrived at this point?

 

Expanding the scope of police powers

Another example of the Criminal Code amendments:

“If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or had the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, whether it was in motion or not, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to [accompany the officer for sobriety testing and/or breath testing].

(Criminal Code, s. 254(2), as amended)

One concern here (as evidenced by the following example) is that, based on the section of the criminal code quoted above, an officer only has to suspect that a driver had operated his/her vehicle 3 hours in the past to qualify for a breath test in the present.  Indeed it is possible that after returning home the driver had consumed several drinks over the three hour period.  Further to this the driver may have consumed a considerable amount of alcohol in as short a period of time as twenty minutes.  Negative life issues can result in a motive for many people.  This does not qualify that a person was operating a vehicle while under the influence or what their BAC may have been in the last short period of time.  The section quoted above allows for an officer to remove a person from their dwelling for testing.  Witness the following scenario:

One of the latest developments is a campaign by MADD to encourage anyone to report impaired drivers. Traffic signs brandishing this exhortation are going up on light standards and elsewhere by the roadside. It has not achieved widespread practice yet but perhaps we will soon see more examples of this as increasing numbers of people click into the possibilities.

Take a case in point: It is an unfortunate fact of life that there are occasions where neighbours living side by side are in bitter conflict. One of the neighbours has friends over for a social occasion. The alcohol flows freely as evidenced by the boistrous deportment of all. The party ends, all leave before 11 o'clock. Shortly after, the neighbour notices the host going out to his car, unlocking the door and

• sitting in the front seat to rummage around in the glove compartment for some article.
• or backing the car up ten feet to be able to get the lawnmower into the garage
• or entering the drivers side of the car with keys in his possession for any reason.

Though the host is not exhibiting any outward signs of intoxication, the neighbour calls his wife over to observe then calls the police to report the host as having care and control while under the influence. The host goes back into the house and has several more drinks.  Some time after (up to three hours is allowed by law), the police arrive at the host's door, call him out and administer a roadside breathalyzer. The neighbours are interviewed and statements taken from each. The host blows over .08, is taken to the station where he is again tested then charged with dui (Care and Control). His license is removed for three months, his vehicle impounded for a week and a trial date set. The penalties upon conviction are exactly the same as if he had been driving down main street weaving wildly, and stopped by police and also if he had exited the vehicle with speech slurred and was staggering. With the amendments described above, the fact that he had no intention to drive the streets is not pertinent. Unfortunately the public is largely unaware of this possibility. Is this scenario really plausible? I personally am aware of one incident similar to this scenario. Though the person in question was not charged formally for DUI the resultant guilty plea to a lesser charge resulted in 8 months of driving restrictions and close to $10,000.00 in fines, vehicle impoundment and legal fees not to mention costs associated with the inconvenience of the initial three month suspension (exclusive of the 8 month driving restrictions) imposed by the police.  

Since precedent is such an important element in the interpretation of our laws and protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one might be concerned as to the possibility of using Balance of Probability to set precedent in other areas of the law in our judicial system.  Though this possibility may be pooh! poohed! within the legal community it would be interesting to assess the rationale behind such assurances, keeping in mind, of course that many of us haven't fallen off the proverbial "turnip truck!"

The Ignition Interlock Device

The Ignition Interlock Device

Sadly it is a misconception that the IID is used only to ensure the driver is sober enough to allow the engine of the automobile to be started. When the devices were first manufactured they actually were geared to this end. When it was discovered that upon occasion drivers who had been drinking got a friend to perform the test for them, the manufacturer built into the machine a process referred to as the Random Rolling Retest,

At random intervals while the car is being driven, the driver will be asked by the machine to provide a breath sample. Within a specified interval of time the breath sample must be provided. If it is not, the horn begins to sound off and the lights begin to flash continuously until the automobile is brought to a complete stop and the sample provided.  The results will be recorded by the machine should the driver fail to make the test.  The machine will not turn the engine off.  THIS DISTINCTION WILL NOT REALLY MATTER AS THE DISTRACTION REMAINS AS INDICATED IN THE EXPLANATION WHICH FOLLOWS.

Should you be in a situation which requires your undivided attention while driving, the manufacturer claims, that if you fail to complete the test successfully,  you will have enough time to either clear the scene or pull off the road to a stop.. The time frame for this is not given in the instructional video. Failure to provide a successful sample within a predetermined time will cause the horn to sound and the lights to flash continuously until the car is brought to a complete stop and a sample provided. A warning to pull off the road will also be provided should you fail the breath test or fail to complete the test within the time limits allowed by the machine. For example, should you drop the device onto the floor of the car and be unable to safely recover it in time, the results are inescapable.

So what repercussions may result from using this device in a rolling retest?:

The sequence of events involved not only in manipulating the device but providing the correct steps in the right sequence to provide a breath sample, employ a considerable mental and physical effort when blowing into the handheld monitor and driving in heavy traffic. Taken together, all at the same time, this will result in an unacceptable distraction possibly further resulting in an accident.

The time frame for providing a sample for the rolling retest can result in considerable driver distraction if he/she is hemmed in, in heavy traffic and attempting to exit a busy freeway. Stress levels may rise unacceptably. Improper lane changes and the like can be extremely hazardous. This has the potential to cause an accident.

If a driver fails a rolling retest (for a reason which may be totally unrelated to a sample failure) the resulting cacophony of horn blaring and lights flashing almost surely will cause increased stress levels and distraction inside the vehicle for both driver and passenger(s) and for other drivers in the vicinity. This has the potential to result in an accident.

 (This might be dated but it would seem that the study was a valid one and should hold true for today).  "Dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%".
http://abionline.org/press_release/293/

 Just as a further note an additional study was done in 2004 by the California Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Please note the quote from the conclusion section of that study:

AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF IGNITION INTERLOCK IN CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN ACCORD WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 762
CHAPTER 756, 1998 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
September 2004

"The relationship between IIDs and crashes changes when crashes are examined for offenders who installed an interlock device. Surprisingly, the two analyses that examined this both showed that the risk of crashes was higher for offenders installing an interlock."

One other point of note is that upon attempting to follow past research paths the author has noted that since posting the original website from which this blog is derived, some manufacturers seem to have either played down or removed altogether references to the consequences of either failing or missing a Random Rolling Retest. Also  I have checked extensively. Manufacturers vary slightly in vehicle reactions to failed random rolling retests but basically most are as described above. I have searched extensively for information on how the random rolling retest works in Ontario. I have not been successful. Dare we say this is a deliberate attempt to mask the truth. What do you think?

In some jurisdictions, the province of Ontario, for example, a new law has come into effect barring the use of handheld devices while driving. This law seems to be specifically geared towards the use of cell phones but is broad enough to include many other activities. It would seem to be hypocritical, that in the list of devices arbitrarily decided to be exempted by the Dept. Of Transportation that the IID be included.  

The following is from the RCMP website:
"Distracted driving: qualifies as talking on a cell phone, texting, reading (e.g. books, maps, and newspapers), using a GPS, watching videos or movies, and playing extremely loud music.
A study has found that taking your eyes off the road for two or more seconds increases your risk of being in a car accident by about double
(Ministry of Transportation)."
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cycp-cpcj/id-cfa/index-eng.htm
  
 You can put away a cell phone in a heartbeat. You cannot ignore the IID in a Random Rolling Retest.  

In the same vein, the IID is mandated for DUI convicted drivers who wish to or have an urgent need to return to driving possibly, for example,  for maintaining one's career.  The penalties for dui are extremely harsh under the guise of re-education.  (Is this a valid judgement call? - Perhaps the only one truly qualified to put forth a valid judgement call is the founder of MADD, Candy Lightner.  With the extremes of legislation subsequently fomented under the powerful lobbying efforts of MADD she quit in disgust claiming that she had never intended the movement to go so far.  At this point in time she has disavowed any connection to this organization as it is today.)   

Personally this author does not wish to be driving in the vicinity of any driver required to take a Random Rolling Retest in heavy traffic

The Expansion of Police Powers

The Expansion of Police Powers To Include issuing Driving Suspensions and Vehicle Impoundments

The rationale for this argument against has been put forth most eloquently by Judge Sigurdson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Such a law grants police unreasonable powers to issue roadside suspensions and vehicle impoundments which involve fines and service charges adding up to a considerable amount.  The following comments are from the British Columbia's Civil Liberties Association April 2013:
"  However, as with all law-making, we need to be careful to strike the appropriate balance between the clear need to promote safety on the roads, and the legal requirement to respect people’s constitutional rights. The courts are currently considering the question: Should the Province’s law penalizing impaired driving come at the cost of losing our constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? The BC Civil Liberties Association (“BCCLA”) says no.
 In the BCCLA’s view, the impact of the law has true penal consequences for drivers and effectively creates a new provincial “crime” of drinking and driving. It does so without any of the protections that apply in the criminal law and that are guaranteed by the Charter, such as the presumption of innocence. On the contrary, the ARP presumes guilt. The only evidence is the roadside screening device, which is not nearly as reliable as a breathalyzer. The evidence from a roadside test is not seen as reliable enough for a conviction under the Criminal Code. Yet, it is the only evidence used in the ARP. Moreover, there is only a limited ability under the law to challenge that evidence.

 The penalties are severe. The BCCLA has no objection to penalties for drinking and driving in general – but remember that these particular penalties are imposed without a conviction and without the normal fair procedures that accompany criminal penalties. Penalties include:

• driving prohibitions for up to 90 days for a fail or refusing to provide a breath sample roadside;
• fines of up to $500 for a 90-day prohibition;
• paying for and attending a remedial driving program;
• impoundment of the vehicle;
• towing and storage costs and a fee to have the driver’s license reinstated; and
• paying for and installing the ignition interlock program.

 The government itself estimates that the total cost of blowing a “fail” (> 0.08 blood alcohol level) is $4,060. That price tag does not include the impact this law has on people who need to use their vehicles to earn a living. The BCCLA is aware of BC residents who have lost their jobs because of the ARP law. Countless other people have suffered from the stigma associated with having to use the ignition interlock device in their vehicles. By the time people can challenge the decision, the damage is already done.
 As noted above, we are opposed to drinking and driving and we think that law enforcement plays an important role in dealing with this problem that tragically cuts off lives and causes hardship and injury to many people. However, we think law enforcement should use the tools already at their disposal to combat the problem of impaired driving. Those tools include, in appropriate circumstances, criminal prosecution. We do not think that the government should be allowed to dress up a criminal offence in regulatory clothing and deny BC residents their constitutional right to due process for what is effectively being treated as a crime.
In 2011, Mr. Justice Sigurdson of the BC Supreme Court found that the ARP was unconstitutional only for people who blow a fail on the roadside device. Justice Sigurdson said that the law violated the Charter because there was no way for drivers to properly challenge the roadside breath test. In 2012, the government changed the law by requiring police officers to tell drivers that they can ask for a second test on a different roadside machine and that they can review the test through the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. These changes still do not address the presumption of guilt underlying the law. The case was appealed to the BC Court of Appeal for a three-day hearing in March 2013. The BC Court of Appeal has not yet made a decision."
  
Clearly this is long overdue as an initiative which requires immediate rectification. As a right, license suspensions and extended vehicle impoundments must be taken out of the hands of police and relegated to the courts where these sanctions imposed as penalties for transgressions in contravention of the criminal code should have been all along. In a free society it is anathema to grant police the powers of detention, judge and jury. This never was intended to be their role.

 The  question remains.  Is there truly protection for the individual under section 11(d) of the charter?  It is amazing what may be accomplished under section 1 of the Charter?

Special Interest Groups

      The Potential For Erroneous Influence Through Social Engineering By Special Interest Groups

They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
Rather than truth as the authority."

-G. Massey, Egyptologist

A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."

-Dresden James 

Realistically, in any democracy those in power are there because they want to be. In a spirit of altruism? Perhaps a healthy degree of cynicism is in order here. It may be true that in the final analysis there will be an election day. Alexander Hamilton the great American statesman said it best in reply to the comment that all are answerable to the “people, “Your “people” sir is a great beast!” An acceptable principle if kept in context. However, in another context, this is a principle which has also served ambitious politicians well. And there have always been friends so-called, and who, sporting their own agendas, have formed friendships with them. The results usually involved sporadic, direct or indirect inconveniences and abuses where the average person was concerned. But in "The Information Age" an old power in new clothes has come to the fore, at times insidious but in The Information Age, very effective.

In relatively recent times a very powerful agent of influence has grown to fruition, nourished, for example, by such influences as Moral Relativism and the Information Age. And this is that of the Special Interest Group or SIG. Now I am referring here to a special class of these, not all. Also this is not to say that issues which drove such initiatives were non-existent in the past. They were. But not nearly as effectively as those which operate today. The lobbying of legislators can involve the interests of individuals, business interests and social causes among others. However, where influencing politicians to enact legislation, rules and regulations which may affect the lives and lifestyle of all and as well demonstrate a clash between morality and quality of life, then addressing such an issue in a balanced fashion becomes a question of just not merely, “Should we enact rules and regulations?' but “How should we?” This, more often than not gets lost in the shuffle.

Now it is no secret that moral conviction can lead to extremist tendencies. Those in special interest groups, in conclave, tend to bounce off each other, if not because of conviction then in the interests of internal politics.  It all fuels enthusiasm. Further, it is essential for such SIGs to embed their cause within a pragmatic raison d”etre or “vehicle” if you like. In this way their actions take on a utilitarian aspect which can never be questioned concerning possible ulterior motives being fueled by emotionalism over reason, or the promotion of excessive and unwarranted intrusion into the lives of all. To employ a mixed metaphor, “Muddy the waters and it's hard to see where to draw the line. And to add to it all, they are in an arena with Special Interest Groups (e.g. access modifications for the disabled) whose own cause, in reality, is easily beyond the scrutiny and reproach of the skeptic. There is even a website devoted to the planning of strategies to promote and gain support and influence for creating and sustaining a SIG for any cause (See below).

Now, all that said, it is extremely difficult to expose the ulterior motives of such groups. First off, there is no way they will ever allow engagement in discussion where their underlying objective is concerned. They learned that lesson long ago. Critics cannot accuse them of ulterior motives as most often the vehicle they have chosen to promote their cause is a valid one. They are also now careful to sidestep the pitfall of short term gain (They subscribe to the “Frog in the Hot Water” syndrome). They will accept success in the long term if it is assured in this fashion. And finally couch the entire discussion in either complexity or rhetoric or questionable statistics. What this translates into for many in society is a superficial or cursory examination rather than an in-depth objective assessment. “After all who has the time? And 'the game' is on tonight!” The snake oil salesman is alive and well!

Now, all that said, how does this translate into affecting the quality of life of the common man? Well it is not about what but about how. It is not about the cause you are using as a vehicle but your long term goal couched within. Hit the first, hard, and in the fallout your goal will also be accomplished as a spinoff. Which is the more subtle, throwing the frog into the pot of boiling water, or slowly raising the temperature in the pot to a boil? Both result in a dead frog.  Have the legislators and the legal system enact increasingly severe penalties, bend the legislation where possible and play to the issue you are espousing, to the detriment of all whose behaviour and compliance are required to see your underlying goal become a reality in society and you have won. A web of small rules? Not if they subvert basic human and constitutional rights. There are ways! Believe it! The key is to marginalize the naysayers and positively reinforce those who bend. Insidious? No Kidding! (Note: See the Dresden James quote above.)

Now how does that apply? Well in Canada section one of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows the Supreme Court (often in collusion with legislators) to modify any right of Canadians using a rationalized construct called the Oakes Test. Also, rules and regulations made governing what provincial legislators deem to be Administrative Privileges are apparently not subject to the Charter of Rights or Human Rights.  There is, in place, a system of Tribunals to protest what are felt to be wrongful sanctions but they are not part of the legal process and some rules and regulations and the practitioners of same are totally exempt from liability. All of this can easily be substantiated and as a point of note, it would seem that an element of political influence rather than that of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the potential to affect the interpretation of Canadian law in Tribunal or even where judicial interpretations of the law are involved.

Now what has been described here is one significant element in control of what we feel should be the precepts dictating our freedoms and our quality of life beyond the constitutional level. So, do citizens have complete say over the direction of quality of life? 

The following is a quote regarding how a special interest group can deviate:

"Neo-prohibitionism

The term is usually used critically to describe groups or individuals, rather than by the groups or individuals themselves. For example, Candy Lightner, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), eventually left the organization in anger and has since gone on to criticize it as neo-prohibitionist, stating that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".[1] Lightner was criticizing MADD's leaders who had called for the criminalization of all driving after drinking any amount of alcoholic beverage. The epithet has also been applied to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation by its critics due to their stance on several alcohol-related issues[2][3] "

Please visit the following link for the Strategies (referred to above) employed by SIG's:  http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/interest-groups/section2.rhtml

Questionable Initiatives re the Medical Branch of the MTO

Though the following is not involved with DUI, it has been included in this blog as it involves the medical branch of the MTO and serves to illustrate the steady erosion of rights inherent in policies and practices to date.  Note the following report this author received.  It was composed and has been generally distributed by a retired police officer.  Definitely worth a read:

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation introduced discriminatory
restrictions and special testing for older drivers in Ontario, under the
false pretension that older driver constitute a significantly higher risk in
traffic.

In November of 2012, I conducted research, obtaining every valid statistic
in Canada and a major Australian Study, that used Canadian statistics. These
studies, including statistics from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation,
revealed that consistently, year after year, the older drivers have had
fewer accidents than any other drive group, and as they age, have fewer
still.

A charge was laid against the Ministry of Transportation , in November of
2012, under the Ontario Human Rights Act. After six months of intense
correspondence, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dismissed my complaint, on
the grounds that the Ministry, and all it's Agencies are exempt.

I continued my pursuit, by going directly to the Minister of Transportation.
After hounding him for a number of weeks, received an email, admitting that
the Ministry did not have the statistical justification to enact the
discriminatory legislation against the elderly drivers, but proceeded
anyway. I presume on preconceived views about the elderly.

This does not only make this law illegal, but it violates the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, The Human Rights Act, The Criminal Code on
Elder Abuse, and the persons right to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty.

If you are still feeling comfortable, consider what is coming . The Toronto
Star recently featured an article called "Driving With Dementia, The New
Impaired Driver".
 

 In this article, it states that 28% of drivers over 65 years of age and
older, have dementia, and suggests that these people should be given a test,
presently being used in Alberta, called the Simard MD Protocal.
This test has no credibility with the Academics and Professional
Organizations, who have come out, stating that they are surprised that a
Government would use a test which is not scientific, unreliable, and sets
the seniors up for failure. 20% fail, 20% cannot be determined.
This test is paid for by the elderly
$250.00 each time tested, and paid to a private firm.

Rumour has it, that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation will be
introducing the Simard test in April of 2014.

Please give this as much distribution as possible, in order to make the
people of Ontario aware of what their Government is doing. The only way to
exercise our rights is to seek remedy through the Courts, however, only
wealthy citizens can afford their rights.

Perhaps, with wide distribution, we may find some legal firm, willing to
something as a public service.

Now given the track record of the branch of the MTO of Ontario with other medical suspension criteria as described in the post above it is quite probable that under loose and faulty examination tools, which they propose to use, those seniors exhibiting memory or even minor lapses in judgement comparable to what you might find in those younger in age will become highly suspect.   Further, under the precedent of the element of "Balance of Probability" established under the Care and Control laws and implied with medical suspensions in the new initiatives regarding suspected "alcohol dependency", many undeserving seniors will be losing their licenses on a large scale.  This is getting out of control and will, over time, result in a further erosion of our rights.

Now check out the following article from the National Post on a different  cause for license suspension - just as misplaced:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/31/drivers-licence-suspensions-for-heart-patients-can-be-unfair-disruptions-cardiologists/ 

and the following website:

 http://www.angelfire.com/on4/ontariomtovision/mto.html


Update:                                      Update:              Update:   It seems that public outcry does have influence with government attempts to promote the agendas of the media and the general public who blindly subscribe to the hype. It seems that government has found it prudent to reverse their irrational stance on the rather severe standards for dementia testing for seniors. It further seems that the premises (i.e. statistics) upon which it was based were faulty. The Following is taken from publications on the CARP website: http://www.carp.ca/2014/01/29/ontario-changes-senior-driver-renewal-program/                                                      
Quote:

Starting April 21, 2014, drivers aged 80 and over will no longer have to complete a written knowledge test, according to the Ministry, and will participate in a shorter and simpler renewal program that includes, a vision test, a driver record review, an improved in-class Group Education Session, and two short in-class screening exercises. This announcement disproves the circulating rumor that Ontario was going to implement the SIMARD Test, a costly, intrusive computer-based testing program with little evidence to support claims of effectiveness. The changes reflect many of the concerns CARP raised about the outgoing seniors’ licencing program, which unduly relied on age to determine licencing, rather than experience, driving record, and ability to drive. In an open letter last February and meeting last March, CARP called on the Minister of Transportation to end outdated licencing protocols that unfairly target older drivers and instead implement driver improvement programs and interventions that pro-actively increase safety measures for all drivers. CARP’s message was heard – the new changes provide balanced approach to ensuring the public’s safety and protecting people’s ability to drive. - See more at: http://www.carp.ca/2014/01/29/ontario-changes-senior-driver-renewal-program/#sthash.1RDMm5DU.dpuf

There is no question that the practices presently endorsed by the MTO to assess medical suspensions need serious review. The rights of all Ontarians would, at present, seem to be in jeopardy unless some serious revisions are enacted. Where the optics are bad (for example, in the case of alcohol dependence) there just may have to be a process followed which will ensure anonymity for those taken advantage of because their need for suspension may be in question (and apparently there is a significant number of these). There just may be no revisions made without an outcry somewhat similar to that of the elder crowd. Serious reform is sorely needed.

Readers who took exception to these initiatives and wrote in protest or made their voices heard in some fashion are to be commended.  It is clear that there is room for change in the process where other issues regarding medical suspension are involved.  These will be dealt with in the near future. 

 
How a retired teacher lost her licence for drinking at home

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
Brampton, Ont. — The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jan. 13 2011, 8:21 PM EST
Last updated Monday, Sep. 10 2012, 11:01 AM EDT
When retired elementary school teacher Barb Copp broke her arm last March during an impromptu wake at her home after the sudden death of her best friend, she never dreamed it would result in the suspension of her driver's licence.
But less than two months after blood tests taken during an emergency room visit that night showed her liver enzymes were out of whack, Ms. Copp was quietly reported to the Ministry of Transportation (MOT) as "alcohol dependent" by her family doctor.

“I think this is a quantum leap," Ms. Copp, furious in her dignified way, told The Globe and Mail this week at her pleasant home in this suburb northwest of Toronto.

But if Ms. Copp's case is typical, suspensions may swiftly follow the submission of only the sparsest information - Ontario's one-page report requires just the date, a signature and a tick in the right box - and may even fly in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The province's mandatory reporting requirement under the Highway Traffic Act appears to date back to 1990, but the number of doctors actually doing it began to "steadily increase" only after the province's health ministry began paying physicians to do it in 2006, Bob Nichols, senior media officer for the transport ministry, told The Globe in an e-mail.

The province pays doctors, who are protected by statute for what otherwise would be a breach of patient confidentiality, $36.25 for each report.

Ms. Copp has a virtually pristine driving record - 53 continuous years on the road with only one speeding ticket in 2002 to her name.
As she wrote to the MOT last May, "I am a responsible member of society. I am trusted by many to be the designated driver for social events. Family, friends and the local taxi service will attest to my claim that I do not, nor have I ever, put others at risk."
She taught school in the area where she lives, is a well-regarded volunteer and guards her reputation fiercely.
When her licence was suspended for a year last July, she was embarrassed and kept the news close to her chest.
"I haven't told many people," she said, "because I bet everyone will think, 'I bet she was drinking and driving and doesn't want to admit it.' It's the shame of it all."
So Ms. Copp suffered in relative silence for the first six months, feeling ashamed and believing she was probably a rare victim of Section 203 of the HTA.
And when Ms. Copp wrote to the ministry, she frankly admitted she had indulged in "over-consumption of alcohol" on March 19, and said "the extenuating circumstance was the death of a dear friend …"
"I called an ambulance to take me to the hospital," she wrote. "My injuries included a dislocated shoulder and a broken humerus. No operation of a motor vehicle was involved."
The ministry website shows that an appeal is granted only if the driver pays $100 and submits additional medical information. The suspension remains in effect pending a decision.
When she received her formal notice, Ms. Copp saw that the one-year suspension - which requires a year of abstinence from alcohol - could be reduced if she completed a treatment program.
She signed up for one, but after four preliminary sessions, was told last Friday she wasn't considered a good candidate because she had admitted from the get-go she was there only to hasten the process of getting back her licence. Indeed, as a brand-new first-time grandmother of a baby living out of town and an avid bridge player, she is keen to resume her life.
But even if she were a problem drinker, that would be a health issue - her health issue - and a private matter.
What she isn't - and there's not a scintilla of evidence to say otherwise - is a drinker who ever gets behind the wheel. "I feel betrayed," she said quietly.
The ministry's own numbers raise the question: How many others are there who have been arbitrarily stripped of their licences absent evidence they pose a risk on the road?
As of 2004, not one Ontario doctor had been convicted for failing to report a medical condition.
And according to a study of Ontario's reporting law written in 2008 for Open Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal, although "drivers who have reportable conditions may over-contribute to crashes … the associations are not overwhelming.
"In summary," the authors wrote, "our data suggest that mandatory reporting in Ontario does not achieve its stated purpose…"