🚀 go-pugleaf

"Paul Morgan" <here@home.net> wrote in message
news:tgitvugm1j8nsj4qhl3bgtu4vc0ajfnu9i@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:06:44 -0400, "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:5iaL9.1484$pS6.216317@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>
> >> "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:f%6L9.226822$C8.636120@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> >> > Correct my if I am wrong but I have never believed it to be a
"privlege"
> >> to
> >> > travel as a passenger in a vehicle.
> >>
> >> Who can correct what you state you believe?
> >>
> >> I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in any
> >> vehicle".
> >
> >Yes you can say that, but can you present any facts to support it?
>
> Read the charter of rights and freedoms?

You are correct in that there is nothing in the charter of rights a freedoms
that specifically states that travel by roadway as a vehicle passenger is a
right,
however there is nothing to state that it is not.

The charter does however guarantee the right not to be arbitrarily detained.
The charter does not state that being detained means being transported to a
police station.
When the police set up roadblocks, every individual in ever vehicle is
arbitrarily detained.
Most if not all of these road blocks are set up in such a manner that traps
travellers in a line of traffic
with no way out. The detainees do not have an option to leave. What is the
difference between being
held immobile in your vehicle awaiting search and being held without cause
at the police station awaiting search.
In your opinion would it be ok for the police to set up a check point on a
busy city sidewalk to detain and search pedestrians in attempt to
catch law breakers?
Actually according to your logic, those pedestrians have no right to be on
the street.



>
> >The law is explicit in stating that it is a privlege to hold a drivers
> >license but
> >can you provide any references that will support your above statement
which
> >appears to
> >be presented as a fact?
> >
> >BTW  YOU can "correct" or maybe change what I believe if you can present
a
> >logical argument based in fact
> >that will "correct" my mind...I mean change my mind.
> >
> >>
> >> > If this were true, it would be a "privlege" for you to transported to
a
> >> > hospital when the old ticker becomes erratic.
> >>
> >> If you wish to look at it that way. You certainly don't have a "right".
If
> >> there were no ambulances available could you sue the State under the
> >Charter
> >> for "denial of rights"? No.
> >
> >
> >Would you point out where I implied that  the state is obligated to
supply
> >ambulances?
> >I only suggested that it is a right to be permitted passage over a
roadway
> >that was
> >built and paid for with tax dollars.
> >If you can show me that it is in fact a privlege, I will have to accept
> >that.
> >
> >A self righteous rant does not qualify as fact.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>