Time to bend over and take it again

[PaulG]

I copied this from the Toronto Sun Wheels section  http://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/06/26/amp-up-opposition-to-this-shocking-development.html  The webpage had some really annoying video ads which is why I copied and pasted it instead.  Our provincial government has now turned traffic offences into a revenue stream with no recourse for appeal or trial.  Now the only question is, where do I move to now?     Undoubtably this will catch on elsewhere, be aware and be angry.  I only just heard about it when I read this article.  The government depends on idiots like me who are too preoccupied trying to make a living to pay the larcenous taxes that they seem never to get enough of.  Now where is that drum of Vaseline....?   

The author Jim Kenzie is a freelance auto journalist and one of the best in the country at doing it, and cutting through the BS.

How ironic that a genuine copy of the Magna Carta is touring Canada on the 800th anniversary of its signing, just as Ontario is about to launch its Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) system for highway traffic offences.

For those of you who snoozed through high school history class, the Magna Carta was a pledge put into effect by King John of England (okay, more or less at sword-point) which laid out what the monarchy could and could not do.

It codified what came to be known as British Common Law, which has formed the basis for constitutional monarchy ever since, and also essentially for all democratic systems of government.

Among other things, and please pardon the archaic terminology but you will get the drift, the Magna Carta says that "no freeman shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions... except by lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.''

But under the AMP system, which has somehow snuck through the Ontario Legislature, 800 years of British Common Law are being tossed into the dumpster.

Because under this new system, most Highway Traffic Act offences will be treated just like parking tickets or zoning bylaw infractions are now: guilty as charged with no option of a trial to defend yourself.

Pay the fine; thanks for coming in.

If a minion of the crown — a cop, acting in Her Majesty's service — says you ran an amber light when you thought it was still green, or you made a left turn at 6:59 p.m. when your watch said it was 7:01 p.m., it's the cop's word against — well, against nothing, because you don't get to say a word, let alone defend yourself.

But the Magna Carta says "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.''

Hello?

That sounds like justice denied to me.

You will have the option of discussing the amount of the penalty — the fine, maybe the demerit points — with an "independent arbiter."

At the moment, the plan is for this dispute process to be conducted online. If you are still unhappy, you may — may — be granted a date with a hearings officer, but only (again) to discuss the penalty, not your guilt.

The monies collected under the AMP system will go to the municipality, and said "independent arbiter" will be an employee of that municipality, which perhaps brings into question the degree of independence of said arbiter.

I have a copy of the so-called "mandate letter" sent by Premier Kathleen Wynne to the current Attorney General, Madeleine Meilleur, upon the latter's appointment in September 2014.

The top priority Wynne lays out for Meilleur in this letter is: "Promoting Fairness and Access to Justice.''

Hello? The AMP system ensures no access to the judicial system at all, let alone any semblance of fairness.

Wynne reminds Meilleur that as Attorney General she has "...a special responsibility as the guardian of the rule of law.''

So, if we remove a huge subset of offences from the rule of law, I guess that responsibility becomes easier to discharge.

Wynne also tells the AG that her goal "...is to ensure that more Ontarians in need are represented by a lawyer through Legal Aid — or have access to the legal supports they may need.''

But if they aren't granted even a sniff of a trial, I guess they don't need any "legal supports" at all.

A letter from Mark Leach, Associate Deputy Minister, Ministry of the Attorney General, to Ray Green, Chief Administrative Officer of the Town of Oakville (I assume similar letters went to all municipalities), says the AMP system came out of a 2011 report from the Law Commission of Ontario, looking into ways in which justice could be better-served in the province.

To paraphrase the Sally Field character in the movie Absence of Malice, this may be accurate, but it is not true.

That Commission sent the proposal to the Law Society, the governing body for lawyers in Ontario, for its review. The Law Society specifically said that AMP was not appropriate for Highway Traffic Act offences where public safety might be involved.

Which is just about all of them.

The Ontario Paralegal Association feels AMP is an egregious violation of our legal rights, which of course it is.

Perhaps this is not surprising on their part, because traffic ticket trials are a major source of their revenue.

But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you aren't being followed; just because you might be biased doesn't mean you aren't right.

The famous 'informed sources' who choose to be unnamed tell me that various Justices of the Peace and even some prosecutors also oppose this plot.

I don't know what it might take for people to rise up and fight this. There was a six-week public consultation process that expired a couple of months ago. How anyone was supposed to know it was even happening, however, escapes me.

It can happen, though. We here at Toronto Star Wheels managed to beat back photo radar in 1995. But we had a provincial election at the time and it became an issue. Former Premier Mike Harris once told me to my face that I was responsible for getting him elected.

It's not just Ontarians who have to be worried about AMP. A similar system has been proposed for British Columbia, and at least two other provinces are considering something similar.

"It's a frightening piece of legislation," warned Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee, as reported in The Vancouver Sun.

According to The Sun, the B.C. legislation is being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada because "it is a novel use of administrative law to address a criminal problem, which makes it easier for police, less expensive for government and dramatically increases fine revenue.''

Just think. If King John had only had the governments of — at last count — four Canadian provinces as his advisers back in 1215, he could have nipped this whole "democracy" business in the bud.

Rest well, King John. All's well that ends badly.

Freelance writer Jim Kenzie has been writing for Toronto Star Wheels since its beginning in 1985. Fore more Toronto Star Wheels stories, go to thestar.com/autos

[chiz]

One day we are going to wake up and wonder what happened and why weren't awake when being ffed all these years we are cowards that's why plain and simple, Right now as I write the HOV lanes should be jammed packed with cars that are not supposed to be there. the lions cant kill every wilderbeast in the herd it would be an awesome message.
Chiz

[Tiger]

To those people that voted this woman, (read lying bitch), in to power...remember, this is another one of her money grabs that lay squarely on YOUR door step

Government for the people...yer right...BEND OVER, once again for Calamity Wynne

John