The Privilege of Privilege
Who says the wealthy, the (once) powerful, the celebrities among us don't have a leg up on the rest of us? Time and again we've seen how strings can be pulled, and the manner in which the justice system is applied unequally to benefit those with contacts, with happily expendable incomes, with the egotistical assurance that they are singularly entitled to special considerations denied all others.
Empowering them to duck legal repercussions for their socially harmful actions.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled in support of a lower court's decision to acquit Margaret (Kemper) Trudeau of drunk driving charges. This former wife of a former prime minister of Canada took advantage of her Charter rights, a primary entitlement through Canada's Constitution, brought into law by her ex-husband, Pierre Trudeau. Her lawyer was successful in convincing a judge that her rights had been infringed upon.
She was operating a motor vehicle, and erratically enough to alert a police officer to her unfit state. She was charged with having in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood in her system. She failed the initial test administered on site, and a second at the police station, where the sample registered 107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, reflecting the original on-site test result.
She was clearly inebriated, drunk, not in possession of her full physical or mental faculties. Yet her lawyer brought forward a case in her defence, that she had been arbitrarily detained and subjected to unreasonable search. And that her right to the lawyer of her choice had been infringed upon by police. Oh dear, her rights had been infringed. Her right as an elitist social figure, as opposed to the rights of others whom her impaired driving might have imperilled.
These suggested "breaches" worked their magic. Privilege has its countless perks, and money can buy the clever intervention of unprincipled lawyers. The superior court justice ruled that the evidence obtained against this woman - those damning blood alcohol readings - would have to be excluded as evidence at the trial. No evidence, flimsy trial: acquittal. How dreadfully clever.
Ontario's current standard of the legal blood alcohol limit for drunk driving stands at 0.08%. The Canadian Medical Association has a problem with this. As it happens, the international medical community is agreed that impairment of function exists at 0.05%. Which is why the CMA and the lobby group Mothers Against Drunk Driving have called on the federal government to lower the legal blood alcohol limit to 0.05%
Doctors, after all, are the first-line workers who respond to the effects of drinking and driving, through the injuries and deaths resulting from impaired driving. It's estimated that impaired drivers kill an average of 4.5 Canadians, and injure an additional 125 people every day. If that's not a national emergency, then what is? It's entirely preventable with diligent application of the law.
Countries like Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and Australia have lowered their legal blood alcohol limit to 0.05%.
Just coincidentally, another drunk driver, a 31-year-old male, has been convicted and sentenced to eight months in jail for driving with three times the legal limit when a spectacular crash occurred, his vehicle flipping over, smashing into hydro poles, and one of two passengers in his vehicle was seriously injured. This man too had a problem with alcohol, only his lawyers weren't as convincing as Margaret Trudeau's.
The very same month and year - November 2005 - when Ms. Trudeau's arrest occurred, this man, Jon Johnston, had been drinking with his fiancee and her uncle. They were clearly inebriated, their behaviour leading to an unfortunate accident when a taxi driver refused to take them as customers due to their state of inebriation, and in his haste to depart, accidentally dragged the man's fiancee 1.4 kilometres to her death.
The judge who sat on Mr. Johnston's case expressed sympathy for his grief, given as a reason for his inebriated state, a year later, while driving and causing the single-car accident. His grief, however, could not excuse his condition, said the judge. There are "no circumstances when this is acceptable", she ruled. "The message has to be clear."
And so it should be. No exceptions. The right of the public to safety and security must surely trump the rights of an individual who feels secure in the knowledge that she is singularly entitled, and may do as she wishes, including placing other drivers in danger through her anti-social behaviour. Alcohol consumption is still the major component of crash rates.
The Province of Ontario has put drivers on notice that henceforth dangerous drivers would be spied upon from overhead, as Ontario Provincial Police take possession of a single-engine Cessna 206 equipped with sophisticated cameras capable of viewing hundreds of vehicles simultaneously. Its primary purpose, to apprehend drunk drivers, among others.
Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister of Ontario claims aggressive enforcement would result in "safe driving and help us catch and punish those who endanger lives on our roads."
Unless you happen to be singularly entitled, can hire pricey lawyers who know their way around the system, and have the sympathy of the judicial system on your side. All things being equal. And clearly, they're not.
Empowering them to duck legal repercussions for their socially harmful actions.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled in support of a lower court's decision to acquit Margaret (Kemper) Trudeau of drunk driving charges. This former wife of a former prime minister of Canada took advantage of her Charter rights, a primary entitlement through Canada's Constitution, brought into law by her ex-husband, Pierre Trudeau. Her lawyer was successful in convincing a judge that her rights had been infringed upon.
She was operating a motor vehicle, and erratically enough to alert a police officer to her unfit state. She was charged with having in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood in her system. She failed the initial test administered on site, and a second at the police station, where the sample registered 107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, reflecting the original on-site test result.
She was clearly inebriated, drunk, not in possession of her full physical or mental faculties. Yet her lawyer brought forward a case in her defence, that she had been arbitrarily detained and subjected to unreasonable search. And that her right to the lawyer of her choice had been infringed upon by police. Oh dear, her rights had been infringed. Her right as an elitist social figure, as opposed to the rights of others whom her impaired driving might have imperilled.
These suggested "breaches" worked their magic. Privilege has its countless perks, and money can buy the clever intervention of unprincipled lawyers. The superior court justice ruled that the evidence obtained against this woman - those damning blood alcohol readings - would have to be excluded as evidence at the trial. No evidence, flimsy trial: acquittal. How dreadfully clever.
Ontario's current standard of the legal blood alcohol limit for drunk driving stands at 0.08%. The Canadian Medical Association has a problem with this. As it happens, the international medical community is agreed that impairment of function exists at 0.05%. Which is why the CMA and the lobby group Mothers Against Drunk Driving have called on the federal government to lower the legal blood alcohol limit to 0.05%
Doctors, after all, are the first-line workers who respond to the effects of drinking and driving, through the injuries and deaths resulting from impaired driving. It's estimated that impaired drivers kill an average of 4.5 Canadians, and injure an additional 125 people every day. If that's not a national emergency, then what is? It's entirely preventable with diligent application of the law.
Countries like Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and Australia have lowered their legal blood alcohol limit to 0.05%.
Just coincidentally, another drunk driver, a 31-year-old male, has been convicted and sentenced to eight months in jail for driving with three times the legal limit when a spectacular crash occurred, his vehicle flipping over, smashing into hydro poles, and one of two passengers in his vehicle was seriously injured. This man too had a problem with alcohol, only his lawyers weren't as convincing as Margaret Trudeau's.
The very same month and year - November 2005 - when Ms. Trudeau's arrest occurred, this man, Jon Johnston, had been drinking with his fiancee and her uncle. They were clearly inebriated, their behaviour leading to an unfortunate accident when a taxi driver refused to take them as customers due to their state of inebriation, and in his haste to depart, accidentally dragged the man's fiancee 1.4 kilometres to her death.
The judge who sat on Mr. Johnston's case expressed sympathy for his grief, given as a reason for his inebriated state, a year later, while driving and causing the single-car accident. His grief, however, could not excuse his condition, said the judge. There are "no circumstances when this is acceptable", she ruled. "The message has to be clear."
And so it should be. No exceptions. The right of the public to safety and security must surely trump the rights of an individual who feels secure in the knowledge that she is singularly entitled, and may do as she wishes, including placing other drivers in danger through her anti-social behaviour. Alcohol consumption is still the major component of crash rates.
The Province of Ontario has put drivers on notice that henceforth dangerous drivers would be spied upon from overhead, as Ontario Provincial Police take possession of a single-engine Cessna 206 equipped with sophisticated cameras capable of viewing hundreds of vehicles simultaneously. Its primary purpose, to apprehend drunk drivers, among others.
Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister of Ontario claims aggressive enforcement would result in "safe driving and help us catch and punish those who endanger lives on our roads."
Unless you happen to be singularly entitled, can hire pricey lawyers who know their way around the system, and have the sympathy of the judicial system on your side. All things being equal. And clearly, they're not.
posted by Pieface | 6:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home