Kenzie's law

The OPP and a law twice-tossed

Jim Kenzie, Jan. 2

Jim Kenzie's use of the constitution defence in his column is another example of the Charter of Rights and the Constitution being among the most used, and least understood, documents in Canadian history.

Lower courts do not overturn law – only the Ontario Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada can. Therefore, until one of them does rule on the stunt-driving law, it remains in effect.

On many occasions where lower courts rule to overturn legislation, the Crown continues to lay charges. The police are the agents of the crown, and directed by the crown, in these circumstances, not the prosecuters.

The judges in these two circumstances appeared to rule on the possibilty of a goal term, not the whole law as Kenzie seems to be saying. I think it is possible the Appeal or Supreme Courts will rule on the same section.

However, in many circumstances in the past, the higher court(s) have given legislators time to rework the unconstitional section, rather than overturning the whole.

Personally, I hope the law will stand without the goal term – the reasons I have read in defence of going over the speed limit by 50 km/h or more are frivolous. That would include a known acquaintance who made up the defence in the case, as most people do in my experience.

Conclusion: Everyone should obey all laws, even the police, or work to have them changed.

John Quinn, Mississauga

What is wrong with you, Jim? I think in the case of the 50 km/h-over-the-limit law, you are on the wrong side of the argument.

I would draw an analogy between a driver driving his car more than 50 km/h over the speed limit with a guy running through a crowd with a loaded gun without any intention of shooting anyone.

Both are dangerous and potentially deadly. Would you argue that a police officer stopping the guy with the gun should let him keep it and just issue a ticket?

Police officers make arrests all the time. The person arrested and carted off to jail does not have the benefit of a lawyer and a trial until later. I do not see this being a problem in the case of someone blatantly ignoring a serious rule of the road.

David Reeve, Toronto

Sometimes, cars

and drivers need to idle

Why idling is for idiots

Lorraine Sommerfeld, Jan. 9

Call me an idiot: I occasionally idle my car.

The other day I was waiting outside a consular office before it opened in order to get a travel visa.

Going to a coffee shop was not an option if I wanted to be one of the first in line and avoid spending the entire morning in a queue.

I sat in my car and after five minutes I turned it on. We live in Canada, not Cancun. It was minus 10C. I was dressed warmly, but when I could no longer feel my toes I thought it time to start the engine.

I do my best to reduce my carbon footprint by making smart lifestyle choices. But I also believe that life should be enjoyable, and it is necessary to find a balance.

I am one "idiot" who refuses to be swayed by extreme views in either direction.

Jason Shron, Thornhill

Write to wheels@thestar.ca or mail

to Your View, Wheels, Toronto Star,

One Yonge St., Toronto, Ont. M5E 1E6.

Please include your full name, address and telephone number.

More videos from Wheels.ca and our partners