I write concerning Ends, Means and Drunk Drivers, the editorial on March 23 and the move by Regina police and the Saskatchewan RCMP to have drivers pulled over for any traffic offence take a breath test.
First of all, criminal behaviour is not a protected Charter right.
Do the ends justify the means?
I do not feel the answer is a “maybe yes” but an unwavering definitive “absolutely yes.”
I commend the Saskatchewan police services for their action and efforts to do something different when it comes to impaired driving.
Certainly we can agree everyone knows it is against the law to drive impaired and you should not do it.
Yet here we are, year after year, story after story, reading about the next innocent person killed by an impaired driver.
Somehow, we still have people who think the laws do not apply to them and that it will “never happen to me.” They either do not care, or they feel immune to the reality they are making a choice to potentially kill someone and be responsible for destroying so many lives.
Yes, this is a calculated decision, it is a choice when you decide to consume alcohol or drugs and then drive. It is a choice that can result in a crime of catastrophic consequences. It is a crime that needs more accountability.
We have seen some positive changes to laws, such as police no longer needing reasonable grounds to request a breathalyzer and refusal of a breathalyzer now resulting in an automatic impaired driving charge.
But what about leaving the scene of a crash? Is this not the ultimate refusal of a breathalyzer? The law needs to be rewritten to say that leaving the scene of a crash is an automatic refusal of a breathalyzer.
It is likely there will be fewer hit-and-runs when people know they have to stick around to prove they are not impaired.
People initially opposed seatbelts, arguing it should be their choice.
It was argued to be an infringement on their rights to make that decision.
The United States is looking at putting anti-impaired driving technology in all new cars starting in 2026. We should follow their lead. The test-everyone-policy is another life-saving measure and not an infringement on anyone’s rights under the Charter of Rights.
It is brilliant. You do not have the “right” to drive impaired. Law-abiding citizens have the “right” to know the Criminal Code is being enforced and improved to keep us all safe, to not have to worry there are impaired drivers out there who may kill our loved ones.
I would argue any measure to save lives should be viewed as positive. It is not logical to argue a criminal’s right to hide that they are impaired is more important than society’s right to be safe.
I have no problem being asked to do a breathalyzer if I am stopped for a traffic violation.
I will have nothing to worry about because I know I will not be impaired.
What I want is my daughter Jordyn Reimer, who was killed by an impaired driver, back and I cannot have that.
If any measure can contribute to saving your child or loved one’s life, wouldn’t you want that?
Karen Reimer writes from Winnipeg.
