The Government argued that if the 90-day Fail IRP scheme was lifted there would be chaos in the streets, dozens of unnecessary deaths (all DUI deaths are unnecessary) and general pandemonium. The argument was that the police in BC needed this tool because it saves lives — that there was no other way, and therefore the Government needed the law to stay in place until June.
But the police stopped using the law and they apprehended more impaired drivers over the holiday season than in typical years past. And despite the Court accepting the Government’s argument and extending the application of the unconstitutional law until June, the police have stopped using it. As far as we can tell, and media reports support this, no person has been given a 90-day IRP since December 1, 2011. So did they really need six months, or was that simply a convenient part of their litigation plan?
Do you need us to answer this for you?
As far as the police are concerned, an unconstitutional law is a nullity. They should not be violating the rights of people and they know that they may be sued if they do. And in any event, there are legal means to deal with impaired drivers. So the chaos / pandemonium argument was hollow. The police knew that they would no longer use the 90-day Fail IRP law in any event.
So the only result in the end is to keep punishing people who were given an IRP for Fail, despite the fact that the law is unconstitutional. Essentially, getting through the back door what you cannot get through the front; making people suffer who should not have to bearing in mind the finding that the law violates the Charter.
As defence lawyers we are often accused of using the court to accomplish something somehow improper – using a technicality of some sort to win in court. Clearly this is more of an issue of the side with which you sympathize.
Blog Points:
Many people write to us hoping to comment on the blog. We would like to do this, but moderating comments takes far more time than we have. Our readers know where we stand regarding this legislation and its application. As lawyers we recognize the need to have a public political discussion of the IRP law. We express the opinions of our office on the blog. We also know that many people wish to express their personal experience with the people who enforced this particular law. This is something we are trying to avoid on our law firm’s website. And if we allow comments, it would be something we could not control.
We have a long tradition in Canada of discussing political issues by way of letters to newspapers. This is still important. But there are now many other ways to engage in a public debate. A number of news stories have been published online regarding the IRP scheme. It is right and proper for people to respectfully engage in public discourse in these places and to write letters/emails to newspapers. If you create a website or post on the internet, we suggest that you try not to demean others for their opinion.
As for profanity, it is part of our language and it is the way people speak to each other. It is no better or worse than any other method of expressing yourself. We have been asked how we can hold back from swearing when we express our anger with the situation. We do not use profanity on the website because we do not want it to become a distraction. We welcome criticism of our points, but we do not wish to allow others to divert attention away from the important issues. But by all means, tell it like it is – you do not offend us. We believe this is an issue of freedom of speech.
Finally, there are a number of media organizations always looking for people who are willing to explain their experience with the IRP scheme. We are reluctant to connect clients with the media. Sadly, this plays into the Government’s hands — they have been effective in silencing people with shame.
If you are willing to speak to the media, even with your identity protected, please send us an email with “Media” in the subject line. We will keep the email and send it along when we are next contacted.
Other blog topics we are working on:
Warn range IRPs: Some level of government in Canada certainly has the authority to legislate a .05mg% limit, but should they still be permitted to punish people on the basis of unreliable evidence? What about people who received a 24 hour 4 years ago and did not dispute it because that was all the punishment that they could ever have anticipated? Accumulated punishment on the basis of non-convictions? Is that fair in any sense of the word?
Shame and stigma: How this worked to silence dissent, how it has now fallen apart and what the Government plans to do to keep you from talking when June arrives.
Experts and ASDs: When the ASD reliability problems were exposed the Government did not bring out an expert to present their side. Why not? (Hint: the Government and the experts know there are problems too. And no one can deny the paper trail.)
Thanks again for reading our blog. We write it for you and so we enjoy your feedback. We read all of the emails we receive, but we do not often have time to respond to them because we are busy working for our clients.
If we can help you, give us a call. If we can help a friend, tell them to call us.