Supreme Court castrates law enforcement

I am not one to slam the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but interpretations of its provisions are fair game. The latest one (as CBC reports) lends itself to ridicule so easily it's pathetic.

The Supreme Court with its recent decision on the use of sniffer dogs has effectively castrated the entire law enforcement force network; by linking the admissibility of evidence to reports of criminal behavior and blatantly ignoring the simple truth that one shouldn't break the law six judges have all but handed Canada to the criminal gangs that smuggle the same drugs that kill and maim so many.

It will thus be safe for the cartels to use one-off or limited-use couriers because people with little or no criminal records in bus terminals cannot arouse reasonable suspicion, provided sniffer dogs were even allowed into the terminal.

But the top court wrote that the police had no evidence that any crime had been committed and that there was nothing to establish that bus depots in general or Calgary in particular are rampant with drug dealers.

Perfect! Now carrying drugs is safe as long as no-one rats you out. Pablo Escobar would send the Supreme Court a thank-you card with flowers! What were they smoking?

A school and a bus terminal, as well as airports, streets, cinemas, stations and the like are public spots where your privacy is invaded by tens or thousands of strangers' eyes. Whereas one's home is one's castle, in public the notion of privacy is somewhat different. This is no argument of the "nothing to hide" sort, just a mere constatation that if law enforcement officials are to protect us from crime and misdemanor they have to be able to do their jobs. One is not supposed to bring magic mushrooms to school, as much as one is not supposed to possess heroin, let alone be clearly intentioned to transport it to other destinations for resale.

I don't know if the judges contemplated the consequences of their incompetence and guaranteeism. This ruling can apply directly to sniffer dogs in airports, since air travel cannot arouse legitimate suspicions, can it?

Whether such catastrophic implications are avoided or not, the message is clear: the notions of "right" and "freedom" are being denuded of the responsibility and law-abiding that comes with them. What's worse, those charged with maintaining law and order are being deprived of the tools and means necessary for their job.

Yikes!