Minor conviction no reason for Canada to snub tourist dollars

Hmmm, I'm not sure how I feel about this - part of me agrees, but part of me also thinks we don't need to import drunk drivers.

Lots of people have driven drunk. Just because some people get caught doesn't make them inherently bad and prone to doing it here while on a vacation or trip of some other purpose.

I don't believe it applies to those with recent convictions though.

Does Gordon Campbell still vacation in Hawaii?

Lots of people have driven drunk. Just because some people get caught doesn't make them inherently bad and prone to doing it here while on a vacation or trip of some other purpose.

You're right the ones who don't get caught are also bad, the ones that do are bad and unlucky.

There are a lot of murders out there, just because some get caught does not make them inherently bad and prone to doing it here......

Both do things that can kill people.

I'm sure if a recently convicted drunk-driver from another country was let into Canada, drove drunk and injured or killed somebody we will all be pointing the finger at the evil Harper Tories for letting them in.

I bet there isn't too many impaired drivers who get arrested the first time they have driven drunk, but I'm sure they wouldn't dare do that when they are on vacation in Canada.

Lots of people have driven drunk. Just because some people get caught doesn't make them inherently bad and prone to doing it here while on a vacation or trip of some other purpose.

Of course not all drunks are inherently bad, as I said, I'm not sure how to feel about this.

After somebody serves their penalty for drunk driving, I'm inclined to think society ought to forgive them, just like it is supposed to after someone does their time for most other minor crimes.

OTOH, there are some drunk drivers who are repeat offenders. Those people should definitely not be allowed into the country, just like we would deny any career criminal entry into the country.

This story is funny to me, coming fresh on the heels of Rick Vaive's purchase of a not guilty verdict. Vaive is reported swerving all over the road by a concerned citizen. The cops come, find him drunk in his truck, pissing himself. He's arrested, blows twice the legal limit on the breathalyzer. What happens at trial? It's an H.G. Wells time travel tale, back to the days of medieval England when trial by wager is an allowable defense. Ricky's buddy, Bill Derlego, tells the judge Vaive wasn't drunk and that trumps the eye witness, the pissed pants, the arresting cop and the breathalyzer. Unbelievable. We can't even convict those breaking the law in our own country and we're worried about a handful of visitors who got nailed elsewhere? Maybe we should get our own criminal court judges to smarten the fuck up before we go showing our outrage at what visitors to our country may have done.

Pretty well all people who drive drunk are "repeat offenders." Nobody drives drunk just once. They haven't been caught more than once is all. Some people who are caught might stop driving drunk, because they become more aware of the consequences, many do not. So I would say somebody with a drunk driving conviction has a good chance of doing it again.

I guess you and I have a differing view on what can be construed as a minor crime. I consider drunk driving to be quite a serious offence, that should carry an automatic jail sentence.

You should try a day in court sometime Lemmy. The judges throw out impaired charges for anything. Case law has made impaired so laborious and technically complicated that a mistake on fifty different forms is inevitable.

The best thing Ontario has is the provincial legislation which gives 24 hour, 3 day and 7 day suspensions for over 50 to 100. Ontario also does 90 day suspensions for criminal code impaired arrests.

Convicting the guilty when you have an expensive defence lawyer is tough to do. The public abhor drink driving but our courts just see it as another point of law to be debated by expensive hired help and our crown attorneys ‘aint up to muster against the impaired-savvy Greenspans et al.


I'm sure a few hundred Yank drunk-drivers won't be noticed.

MADD is willing to forgive them, I guess we can too. Same goes for shoplifters and even some of the rioters who may only be found guilty of public mischief. I don't have a problem with this as long as it's only misdemeanor. And anyway, it's a one time pass, after that they have to make a proper application.

As I say, I wonder what the US's position on this is - does ex-premier Gordon Campbell still go to Hawaii? Bet he does.