The Human Condition: Traffic violation
By DR. DANIEL SCHNEE on January 19, 2022.
Governments are in the business of taxation and finance; it is part of organizing a functional nation. Nobody likes paying taxes and such, but we do get value from having the government deal with policing and infrastructure. Building roads and catching criminals are worthy uses of such funds. So imagine my extreme dismay when I discovered that, as part of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act and Justice Transformation Initiative, traffic court as we know it will be eliminated on February 1. Without even delving into the details of what will replace it, the very idea that this is justice being “transformed” is sickening. I would know. I have dealt with traffic court previously, and received a fair hearing that required nuance and debate. I would have been denied justice and my rights without it. The official word is that this new system reduces legal backlogs, and culls those who do not show up in court to dispute their charges and fines as promised. But you will pay potentially expensive administrative fees no matter what the verdict is, a verdict which will now be decided by a special adjudicator: appointed by the government, legal training not required, who cannot alter or amend the charge, but simply decide whether it does or does not get thrown out. This is an absolute outrage, and criminal in itself. We are both losing our right to a fair trial by actual legal experts, and being forced to pay indexed fees for the “privilege” to lose that right. Not all traffic violations are cut and dried. If a person is driving over the speed limit for example, their fines and demerits are measured on a scale rising up to 50 kilometers over the limit – 51 kilometers over moves the case into serious criminal territory: excessive speed that could result in injury or fatalities. The significance of that one kilometer is an exponential difference in demerits, suspension, thousands of dollars in fines, and insurance increases, or possibly complete cancellation. That one kilometer could destroy one’s economic future, thus one needs a lawyer or paralegal to argue multiple points of law and interpretation. Under this new system there is only the charge, remaining or staying. And since these charges will bring the system millions of dollars in fines, an adjudicator’s job is not really justice but fiduciary duty: collecting “guilt taxes” for the government. Once again the poor and minority immigrants will be serious victims of such forms of “justice”. If you can’t write out an eloquent explanation of your actions, or afford the fees, you will “remain” guilty by default. This is also an anti-police action, as the average officer will be the recipient of any and all anger when they issue tickets. They did not make this legislative decision, but they will be the ones suffering abuse. Blue lives matter but, according to the Justice Initiative, not so much that they might mete out any less lucrative justice. We lose rights and the police get more derogatory treatment. Unacceptable. Indeed, how can we accept a system that will be more unjust in the name of justice itself? That is insanity. We must speak up and non-violently fight this new initiative, using legal means. The poor and the innocent need our help. Dr. Daniel Schnee is an anthropologist who studies Japanese creative culture. 11-10
