A serious infringement on the freedom and liberties of the Canadian People.
Changes to Canada’s impaired-driving laws passed by the Trudeau Liberals are causing massive outrage throughout the country, as Canadians see how the draconian new rules infringe on our civil liberties.
The Trudeau Liberals have changed Section 253 of the criminal code.
Now, police are allowed to demand breath samples from drivers for any reason, without needing a “reasonable suspicion” that someone has been drinking.
Here’s part of a Global News article describing the disturbing changes:
“It may sound unbelievable, but Canada’s revised laws on impaired driving could see police demand breath samples from people in bars, restaurants, or even at home. And if you say no, you could be arrested, face a criminal record, ordered to pay a fine, and subjected to a driving suspension. You could be in violation of the impaired driving laws even two hours after you’ve been driving. Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road.“It’s ridiculous, it’s basically criminalizing you having a drink at your kitchen table,” Paul Doroshenko, a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer who specializes in impaired driving cases, told Global News.”
The changes are absolutely horrendous:
“If you start to drink after you get home, the police show up at your door, they can arrest you, detain you, take you back to the (police station) and you can be convicted because your blood alcohol concentration was over 80 milligrams (per 100 millilitres of blood) in the two hours after you drove.”
And Canadians are outraged. Here’s what people are saying about it:
“So you can stop at the liquor store for a bottle of wine. Get home and have a few glasses of wine and just when you are watching TV a knock on the door from a cop with a breathalyzer. WTF
#NannyState“
So you can stop at the liquor store for a bottle of wine. Get home and have a few glasses of wine and just when you are watching TV a knock on the door from a cop with a breathalyzer. WTF #NannyState
— Raptor Girl SK (@raptorgirlSK) January 10, 2019
“Am I missing something? This screams unconstitutional”
Am I missing something? This screams unconstitutional
— Tyler (@mitchymarns2044) January 10, 2019
“People shouldn’t be bitching and should be doing something. This isn’t a small step at taking away #CivilLiberties , this is very major and very concerning. This opens the door to any and all random searches. They can now come to your “home” without reason or cause.”
People shouldn’t be bitching and should be doing something. This isn’t a small step at taking away #CivilLiberties , this is very major and very concerning. This opens the door to any and all random searches. They can now come to your “home” without reason or cause.
— =+=฿ЯỢИЖ=+=™ (@Bronx22) January 10, 2019
“How is this not a Charter violation? This feels like the start of a police state. It’s one thing if that person did a hit and run and they pull this out, but it also allows for them to use it on someone that angered them in their persinal life.”
How is this not a Charter violation? This feels like the start of a police state. It’s one thing if that person did a hit and run and they pull this out, but it also allows for them to use it on someone that angered them in their persinal life.
— jennD (@jenndenator) January 10, 2019
“I cant wait for someone to tail the bloody politicians who approved this at some restaurant having a sip of win for dinner to their own private residence. This isnt the Canada i want to be proud to call home”
I cant wait for someone to tail the bloody politicians who approved this at some restaurant having a sip of win for dinner to their own private residence. This isnt the Canada i want to be proud to call home
— casperNgrayson (@SnJP) January 10, 2019
“So now it’s a reverse onus, and unconstitutional under presumption of innocence. Can’t wait for the SCC to strike this one down.”
So now it’s a reverse onus, and unconstitutional under presumption of innocence. Can’t wait for the SCC to strike this one down.
— Matt Vukojevic (@MatDak) January 10, 2019
“I do not D&D but I do occasionally drink while at home, this is a HUGE overreach on our personal privacy & civil liberties.”
I do not D&D but I do occasionally drink while at home, this is a HUGE overreach on our personal privacy & civil liberties.
— Joseph McCabe (@Joe4308) January 10, 2019
“Umm… since when did our legal system operate on the principle of “GUILTY until proven innocent”?”
Umm… since when did our legal system operate on the principle of “GUILTY until proven innocent”?
— Christopher Nelson (@chris24nelson) January 10, 2019
Horrible government overreach
Almost nobody in the country is defending this horrible government overreach, and there is widespread expectation that it will be struck down.
The very fact that the political class was willing to support such horrendous legislation shows the total disregard they have for our rights and our freedoms, and is why we must always be vigilant in defending our liberties as Canadians.
The government cannot be trusted.
Spencer Fernando
Photo – YouTube
***
