A growing number of people need firm hand

Libertarians and many others are incensed by the recent plan of the Canadian government to allow for random breathalyzer checks on our roads. They say this would create an intolerable intrusion into people’s privacy. That may be so, but it is the right response to a society that is becoming increasingly more stupid and more immature.

I am known for speaking out against too much government, excessive tax burdens and attempts to gag people’s right to free speech. But I am also a law-and-order guy who thinks that criminal and anti-social behaviour must be punished severely – the more severely, the better.

When former British prime minister Tony Blair introduced asbos (anti-social behaviour orders), I was among the first to applaud and dreamed about how wonderful it would be to have asbos in Canada as well. I have seen way too many examples of people acting stupidly or in anti-social ways – as a result of current and/or past drug use, as well as poor parenting – to still believe that government and law enforcement should not do everything possible to put an end to all that nonsense.

The recent incident at the Calgary zoo speaks volumes: two morons break into the zoo, jump a fence to get closer to the tigers’ cage and stick their arms in. One of them will probably lose at least one of his arms. They are both facing criminal charges, while Calgarians are saying, given the reckless and utterly inane behaviour of the two nitwits, that they should pay for their own medical bills, instead of relying on other taxpayers to pay for their stupidity under the universal healthcare system.

No person in their right mind would do such a thing. Only one who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or both, or one who has already suffered permanent brain damage from smoking marijuana for too long would do such a moronic thing as using one’s arm as bait for a tiger.

Sadly enough, the number of people who get behind the wheel while drunk or stoned is climbing. Here in Calgary, I have lost track of the many times I have had to call police to report street-racers and other reckless drivers – and not too long ago, I managed to have about five to seven idiots arrested for drug use and dealing in my neighbourhood. Going by the number of criminal and anti-social morons I have “collared” in the last two to three years alone, I should be named honorary sheriff or something.

No matter what the causes of reckless driving may be, giving police permission to stop any vehicle for a spot check on the driver’s sobriety is a good thing. Who knows what, or who, else some of those checks may uncover?

The self-anointed libertarians have been out in full force, screaming bloody murder over the random breathalyzer checks and advocating for an extreme form of libertarianism that is about as detrimental as socialism or communism. Pure libertarianism, if we can call it that, would result in total chaos, loss of order of any kind and anarchy. In an ideal world populated by reasonable and mature people, it might work, but seeing how people are actually becoming dumber almost every day, giving people total freedom would be a disaster.

It is a sad testament to our times that too much freedom from rules and order would end in a catastrophe. While we need to scale back the reach of government in many other areas, when it comes to law-and-order issues, there is no doubt that the vast majority of people need a watchful eye and a firm hand to keep them out of trouble or, if they have already offended, to punish them severely.

Comments

[Dave Hodson]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. As much as I would like to combat impaired driving (and all crime in general), my concern is the slippery slope. First we allow the police to randomly stop motorists to asminister sobriety tests, next someone will be recommending random inspections of our homes, looking for drugs and weapons (and lawn pesticides if you live in Ontario). Every time society allows an additional intrusion into our lives, I think it makes the next proposed intrusion seem all that more acceptable. I don't want to progress to the point where a proposal to allow random checks of our homes, for example, would actually seem reasonable and acceptable by society, instead of it being looked upon as the ludicrous intrusion into our lives that it is.

[JCW]

I agree with Dave H above. This proposal is indeed a very slippery slope. The few times I've interacted with law enforcement officials have all left a very bad taste in my mouth, even though I hadn't broken ANY laws, and in a couple of instances asking for assistance. The old adage: Police, your friend and helper is a quaint left over from the 19th Century. Today's Cop is in many instances no better than an undereducated bully living out his fantasies with the support of the law.

What you are advocating is the old Napoleonic civil law: Guilty until proven innocent.

There are countless examples of incidents in this country where RCMP or police have colluded and concocted charges to cover up their own misdeeds. They do NOT need more powers. The existing laws have to be enforced by Judges, not the watered down version whereby habitual criminals are slapped across the wrist and let go to continue on in their behavior.

[Brian in Calgary]

The break-in at the zoo reminds me of the favourite saying of a friend of mine: "You can't fix stupid."

With respect to the proposed random breathalyzer checks, the key thing to remember is not just the catching of drunk drivers (and I agree - existing laws DO need to be enforced more strictly), but the prevention of drunk driving. Experience from other countries indicates that bringing in random checks does result in less drunk driving.