Torlyn said:
Unless such restrictions can be demostrably justified in a free and democratic society. We've got pages and pages of arguments here, and the vast majority believe that testing prior to deployment is a good thing. Granted, this isn't exactly a representative cross-section of Canada, but if it were, would you acquiece to the majority (as per a democracy)? Or, do you believe that our rights need to be protected regardless of what the populous wants? If our citizens decide that certain restrictions on rights are desirable, then so be it.
If one of those restrictions is me peeing in a bottle, or giving a blood test before I sail, then so be it. There is something to be said for the restrictions of rights for CF members in order to improve the optics for the general public. The more the public believe in, and support us, the easier it is in the long run to do our jobs.
Your example regarding the gun seizure... This is something you are happy with? I'm curious how you feel about something like that... Let's say that the suspects were released, and went and committed a crime with that firearm... It's possible that because the police infringed upon their rights and seized the firearm, they may have prevented a more serious crime. How would you justify that to the families of potential victims?
If my tone's a bit abrasive, it isn't meant to be. You've stated what / why you believe, and I'm trying to understand how your thought process is working, in order to further a meaningful discussion.
No requirement for drug testing has been demonstrably justified. Because impairment cannot be proven by drug testing, there is no real benefit. Because false positives are very possible, there is a likely detriment to non-drugusers. If you can provide one example of a drug conviction based upon a drug test, please share it. Alcohol is a different matter because levels can be measured and linked to impairment, and there have been thousands of convictions as a result.
Until reliable drug tests can be developed, and they are able to measure impairment rather than simple exposure, they are meaningless.
And what the populace wants is not necessarily fair, correct, or ultimately desireable. Democracy unchecked is simply a polite term for a mob. That is why countries have constitutions capable of overriding democratically-decided laws that do not meet constitutional standards. What the majority believes to be a good thing may not necessarily be, regardless of how strong that belief may be. I'll bring up the Firearms Act again as a perfect illustration.
That is why I asked for proof that a problem exists. Not just casual use, but cases of impairment causing death, injury, or property damage. There may or may not be - I simply do not know. I have seen no such indication in my particular environment, so I'm asking. Presuming that there is a problem, it must then be proven that a given counter is effective or likely to be effective and is proportional.
I do not see that society will view us any better if we submit to drug tests. In fact, it may well view us in a more negative light if reports are publicised that X number or percent test positive, because they will not see the context or understand that many results may be false and that, in any case, no impairment or job performance can be linked to those numbers. Most people do not read beyond the first or second sentence, even if they get past the headline, and we will merely be presumed to be druggies.
I do not agree with the judge who dismissed that case. I do not know if it was appealed, but I would hope so. There is a difference between an illegal search and stopping cars leaving a parking lot under the circumstances. As I understand, there was nothing illegal about the search itself. The judge's objection was simply that only the vehicle described should have been stopped.
As far as our rights are concerned, they are no different than any other citizen's. Rights apply to all, equally, or they are meaningless. The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. The Charter is part of that. All other laws and their attendant regulations must conform to that or be struck down by the courts.
One Charter-protected right is to be treated equally under the law. If an argument is going to be made that drug testing can be linked to safety, and I believe that to be false, then that safety requirement should be applied also to all operators of the deadliest machine in the country: the private automobile.
To some/many, this is trivial and not worth worrying about. I could not have cared less many years ago either; successive waves of legislative attacks on law-abiding citizens who happened to own firearms and like shooting changed that. The current Firearms Act attacks numerous Charter-guaranteed rights, among numerous other flaws. The awareness that this has awakened within me also causes me to disagree with the terrorism act and agree with gay rights - and any others' rights for that matter.
I don't see anything abrasive in your tone, so don't worry about that.
.
