First it was Caledonia. The OPP decided which Canadian and Ontario laws that they would enforce. After the Douglas Creek Estates were illegally "occupied" by aboriginals, the police did nothing to enforce the law. The OPP were accused of standing around and doing nothing while people, mainly the innocent residents of the town, became the victims of criminal acts.
This led to accusations of Ontario being subjected to a two-tiered system of justice.
Dalton McGuinty, scared to death of another Dudley George incident, defended the inaction on the part of the provincial police by saying that the government cannot tell the police what to do. Little Dalton, aka John Tory, echoed the statements of the premier. The politicians that should provide equal access to justice to all Ontarians, even those white people in Caledonia confused helplessness in the police refusing to enforce court orders and the law with directing police in their day to day operations. But hey, it's no big deal.
On September 30, amendments to the Highway Traffic Act came into effect. Section 172 (1) of that act states:
No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. [Emphasis added]
When someone is charged under s. 172, the police officer has the power not only to suspend that person's license on the spot but to seize and impound their vehicle for a period of up to seven days. There is no appeal from either the immediate suspension or the seizure of private property by a police officer.
Section 172 came into being after a series of high profile tragedies that involved street racing. While racing is supposedly the prime reason for these harsh penalties, the section is a lot broader that simply increasing penalties for racing. Racing is defined as driving in excess of 50 kilometers over the speed limit. Someone doing 160 kilometers an hour on a wide open 400 series highway is just as guilty as someone who is actually "racing". But the objectionable part of the legislation is the penalties levied against those who are charged with "performing a stunt". A stunt can be changing lanes quickly; something that most drivers do on occasion. The police now have absolute discretion to not only suspend the license of a driver and seize his or her car but to decide what driving maneuver constitutes "a stunt".
Through the media, the police are openly bragging about how they have seized some rental cars under this legislation. The concept of private property doesn't seem to mean much anymore in Ontario. The theory is that the driver or the renter of that vehicle will be subjected to additional charges to the rental company for the time that the vehicle is impounded. Hehehe! No one seems to get upset that the if the driver and the rental company have a contract that the car is to be returned that day, and the vehicle is held for a further week, the rental company is deprived of its lawful property. Not only are Ontarians subjected to trial by police constable, but the property rights of completely innocent people are totally ignored. Not only are we moving towards a police state but this legislation is scary in terms of any property rights that those who live or do business in Ontario have.
After a week and a bit, there is no evidence that this legislation is having any effect. Two brothers, 22 and 27, were charged after one of the vehicles they were driving while allegedly racing, crashed and caused a chain reaction accident that resulted in the deaths of two innocent women. They are now facing charges of criminal negligence causing death that has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. If recent "racing" sentences are any indication, they're looking at house arrest upon conviction. Section 172 is a perfect example of how we don't need any new laws if we could effectively enforce the current ones, especially through meaningful sentences. It's hard to believe that seizing a vehicle can deter actions that facing a life sentence can't.
The whole notion of being able to seize private property as a result of a police officer determining what constitutes "a stunt" should cause outrage. But it hasn't. Police powers and private property doesn't even register on the radar screen of the upcoming election. The only way it could have been an issue is if John Tory proposed that seized vehicles be sent to faith-based pounds. But, alas, Tory and the bright lights that are running his campaign never thought of that.
Slowly but surely, our rights to private property and to be protected from arbitrary police powers are eroding. But that doesn't seem to be a big deal to most Ontarians.
