D8

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

5 Comment(s)

Animal bill just a start

To The Editor:

I would like to clarify a few things in response to Mr. Ward's impassioned letter yesterday on animal cruelty legislation.

First, I would like to make it clear to Mr. Ward that we are on the same team on this issue. I support any and all efforts to improve the treatment of animals and to punish people who mistreat and abuse them.

The fight against animal cruelty has been a part of the Liberal Party's work for many years, and as your Member of Parliament I believe that putting in place effective legislation is essential.

Second, my goal in supporting the passing of Bill-203 was to ensure that legislative improvements would be in place, as soon as possible. As I have said before, presenting ANY amendments to Bill-S-203 would have forced the Bill to be sent back to the Senate, and would have delayed the passage of ANY improvements, including those presented by my colleague Mark Holland.

I stand by my position that Bill S-203 is an important and necessary accomplishment; a first step that can be followed by further improvements, such as the Bill proposed by my colleague Mark Holland. We are not at the end of the battle against animal cruelty and my colleagues and I will continue to work so that the Criminal Code can be successfully updated to better reflect our values.

Brian Murphy, MP,

Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe

No fear if nothing hidden

To The Editor:

I found Michael Pugsley's letter "If we give up rights, who polices the police?" in the Aug. 25 Times & Transcript to be a bit over the top.

He was criticizing the letter that Ernest Robinson had written on Aug. 21 in which he voiced his approval for allowing police to search vehicles that they pull over for driving or other infractions.

I am in total agreement that the police should be allowed to search vehicles, if, as they claim, they first obtain the driver's permission to do so. This procedure is no different from that which we are subjected to when customs officers search our luggage and/or vehicles when we return to this country from abroad.

We expect our police force to keep our homes, businesses and our families safe, but every time we chip away at their ability to do so, citing the Canadian Charter of Rights, we are in fact reducing our expectations of safety.

In the recent past we have seen at least three high court decisions that impact on the ability of police to carry out their difficult and sometimes dangerous tasks.

In the first a lady was able to successfully plead that her rights were infringed because the speeding ticket she was given was not delivered by an officer who was able to speak the language of her choice.

In the second instance, a judge refused to accept evidence of drugs found in a vehicle following it being pulled over for a driving infraction, claiming that it was an illegal search, even though the driver had agreed to the officer searching his vehicle.

In the final case, the courts decided that it was an invasion of privacy to allow drug sniffing police dogs to check out the lockers of high school students in a school. If, by allowing random drug searches with or without dogs at schools, we can help to keep our children safe from the scourge of drugs, then I say it is worthwhile.

How else are our police going to be able to keep our children safe from pedophiles or drug pushers unless we give them the weapons to do so? And our namby-pamby Young Offenders Act is a joke in comparison to other countries.

If our police suspect that a vehicle they pull over for a driving infraction may be carrying drugs or contraband cigarettes or tobacco, and they have a reasonable suspicion, that should allow them to search the vehicle, with or without the driver's permission.

It is bad enough that the defence lawyers (often paid from taxpayers funds by Legal Aid) do everything they can to get their client set free or at least to have a reduced sentence, without having the very judges who are appointed, refusing to accept legally obtained evidence.

And to those who will cite the Canadian Charter of Rights, I say only those who have something to hide, need be afraid!

Keith J. Tindale,

Shediac

Don't tie hands of our police

To The Editor:

It was with some interest that I read Michael Pugsley's letter about police abuse of authority in Monday's paper.

I have to say that I pretty much doubt that searches are done on a whim. When police have reasonable suspicion, they act. I, for one, am happy they do because it all comes back to the simple equation that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from police interest.

It would appear that Mr. Pugsley would not have the police act on their suspicions. He posits what if your neighbour calls the police and says you have drugs in your car? Well, if they did search it based on the call (reasonable suspicion) and you're an upright citizen, then you have nothing to fear and it would then be the neighbour who would be the subject of interest from the police for a malicious and false report.

The incident in Montreal was a tragic mistake. These unfortunate situations do happen, sad to say. I'm sorry Mr. Pugsley, but hamstringing the authorities is as bad, if not worse, than unchecked authority.

From the tone of your letter the police shouldn't act on tips, suspicions, phone calls, Crimestoppers, etc. Ultimately, if we make it easier for criminals because we've made it hard for the police, then we all suffer.

Kevin Carson,

Moncton