Alberta police can seize and auction off johns' cars

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Doesn't the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect your right to own property?

no

[White Doors]

you can thank Trudeau for that one.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

This is not the only law that seizes property. If you are caught driving with a suspended licence. BOOM your car is seized for 30 days. You get caught importing illegal goods. BOOM car is seized.

The persons vehicle will not be sold until after the person is found guilty.

Yeah, but is this the only law that siezes property that really doesn't have anything to do with the offense?

Let's say a guy is out cruising for hookers. He's pestering the local women, bothering school children, and generally being a nuisance. He happens to be on foot though. Should the cops confiscate his shoes? It's pretty much the same idea. Whaddya think?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, but is this the only law that siezes property that really doesn't have anything to do with the offense?

This law does have to do with the offense. If the john is driving around looking for prostitutes, the driving part is relevant.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Let's say a guy is out cruising for hookers. He's pestering the local women, bothering school children, and generally being a nuisance. He happens to be on foot though. Should the cops confiscate his shoes? It's pretty much the same idea. Whaddya think?

Sounds good! Let's do that next.

OR... we could use the famous 80/20 rule - cover 80% of the cases by using only 20% of effort (one law covers the majority of hooker cruising cases).

I highly doubt that the intent here is to cover off all cases... but deal with most of them. If you want to object because it isn't all-encompasing and only deals with "most" cases and not "all" cases, then go for it... but I'd rather have something than nothing.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, but is this the only law that siezes property that really doesn't have anything to do with the offense?

Let's say a guy is out cruising for hookers. He's pestering the local women, bothering school children, and generally being a nuisance. He happens to be on foot though. Should the cops confiscate his shoes? It's pretty much the same idea. Whaddya think?

Well, I know certain police departments have taken the coat and shoes of certain individuals and dumped them on the outskirts of town. That didn't work so well...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, but is this the only law that siezes property that really doesn't have anything to do with the offense?

Let's say a guy is out cruising for hookers. He's pestering the local women, bothering school children, and generally being a nuisance. He happens to be on foot though. Should the cops confiscate his shoes? It's pretty much the same idea. Whaddya think?

But the vehicle has a lot to do with this type of offence. It gets the person to the local area. it allows the person to cruise until they find someone. It is the location of the offence (soliciting). It is the location of the sexual act.

When someone gets caught importing illegal goods, the vehicle is not really in question (unless it is illegal aswell). But the vehicle was used to carry out the offence.

If someone walks across the border with illegal goods...then the vehicle is not used and no seizure would take place. Just like with this law. You walk down town and solicit sex...well no vehcile was involved...but if you drive down and do the same thing...it applies.

[SeeGeeWhy]

You can tell which users pays for sex by what sides are being taken in this thread.

The only reason it is a bull**** law is because it won't do anything to curb prostitution.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

You can tell which users pays for sex by what sides are being taken in this thread.

The only reason it is a bull**** law is because it won't do anything to curb prostitution.

I'll let that first part go as a lame attempt at a joke.

As others have pointed out, I don't really think the aim of this new law is to curb prostitution per se. After all, prostitution is not illegal. What the law IS aimed at, however, is the kind of street trawling in shady areas and other neighborhoods. People don't want weirdos with lustful eyes driving by them in their neighborhoods while they walk home from work. Neither do people want used condoms or, as Fotze called them, "gizzwads" all over the sidewalk.

This law will make it really uncomfortable for those caught soliciting prostitutes in certain neighborhoods by forcibly removing them from their automobile either temporarily or permanently. It's meant to be harsh. It's meant to be extreme. Whether it goes too far and may be tantamount to imposing a penalty before a finding of guilt is another question. That's where I have concerns with the law.

If hookers stopped walking the streets and people stopped cruising around in their cars looking for dates, I'm sure the majority of people would be happy. Paying for sex in the privacy of your own home is an entirely different animal and will not be curbed by this law. In fact, there may be increased pressure for prostitution to become more of a dial-a-hooker operation. But for those who prefer to do some window shopping downtown before they pay for their merchandise...

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

You can tell which users pays for sex by what sides are being taken in this thread.

This coming from a guy with a rapist for an avatar and who makes other comments like I predict that PPV can gently tongue my ballsack.




Sorry, but playground type accusations will not deter me from discussing the merits of this issue in an adult manor.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

You can tell which users pays for sex by what sides are being taken in this thread.

The only reason it is a bull**** law is because it won't do anything to curb prostitution.

You can obviously tell you forgot to take your meds today. Go back to bed and wake up happy.

[Scorponok]

I got a solution! Why don't we just find the pimps, drag them out into the streets and have an angry mob bludgeon their skulls into little chunks of meat? Plus, Calgary has a pretty healthy squirrel population, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

Failing that, I don't see how this law is going to help. Johns will just adapt and switch to different tactics, such as walking towards the hookers instead of picking them up. But I am sure it'll help those people who have a very cheap beat up car to sell.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by ken0042

This coming from a guy with a rapist for an avatar and who makes other comments like I predict that PPV can gently tongue my ballsack.




Sorry, but playground type accusations will not deter me from discussing the merits of this issue in an adult manor.

Brian Peppers is no rapist, I will have you know. He is a kind, gentle, and misunderstood soul.

As for my comments in this thread, I was merely making a suggestion that those who are defending prostitution give the impression that they also indulge. Did I say that was morally right or wrong? I don't think so... why did you get the impression I was attacking anyone in particular? And why were yourself, Cheese and fredr123 so quick to jump on my comments as if I were?

Interesting...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

As for my comments in this thread, I was merely making a suggestion that those who are defending prostitution give the impression that they also indulge. Did I say that was morally right or wrong? I don't think so... why did you get the impression I was attacking anyone in particular? And why were yourself, Cheese and fredr123 so quick to jump on my comments as if I were?

Interesting...

So... because someone defends something, that automatically implies that they indulge in it? Thats quite the leap to make, and pretty lame to try and smear them as people who use prostitutes. I defend the right of people not to be executed by the State, that doesn't imply that I've committed a crime worthy of execution... does it?

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by fredr123

After all, prostitution is not illegal.

Really? I had it wrong all this time then.

[Flash Walken]

another point that hasn't been raised so far is what is this going to do the profession of pimping, a job that wasn't easy to begin with?

chuch.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So... because someone defends something, that automatically implies that they indulge in it? Thats quite the leap to make, and pretty lame to try and smear them as people who use prostitutes. I defend the right of people not to be executed by the State, that doesn't imply that I've committed a crime worthy of execution... does it?

No, it doesn't.

If you were defending a person from being executed by the state, you are defending them from unethical treatment, and not so much as defending them for what they did to be in that situation in the first place. You're not defending someone's right to murder another (for example), but you are championing the concept of forgiveness and rehabilitation...

The example used is poor, but I see what you are trying to say.


You're reading too far into my words, Agamemnon, if you think that is the leap I am trying to make.

Perhaps I should be more clear.

There are those in here saying the law is good, those who say the law is poor, and those who are choosing to focus on the act of prostitution itself... and rightly so, as this is the root of the discussion, and is the issue that ought to be debated rather than whether or not cars should be confiscated.

So that said, why bother defending the act of prostitution if you were not a client, or interested in becoming one yourself? I don't agree that the act of prostitution is a freedom that is to be protected.. just as trafficking illicit drugs or making/distributing child porn would not be freedoms to protect. All of these have a net negative impact on society. For every good story you hear about prostitution, you'll hear 10 bad stories.

...And the whole 'exchange of sex for cash between consenting adults' argument is a load of crap. People who go to whores are too lazy or incapable of earning sex for themselves. Sex is a gift and it is an act that is cheapened immeasurably when it is paid for and compressed into a moment of two strangers rubbing genitals. It is not an exchange between two consenting adults... it is a delusional pity party attended by two depressed, confused and desperate people. It is a symbiotic relationship that seems to nuture some twisted idea of reality for both parties, when in fact it is damaging to both.

Oldest profession in the world. Give me a break. I guess it is this way because there were, are and always will be a lot of people out there who are so spineless and afraid of loving someone that they have to resort to thinking that they have to pay for a little pleasure, and that doing so is a pleasurable experience.

Flash, now that is some funny ****.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

I'm not so sure its as simple as this. Doesn't the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect your right to own property? The police can't just violate your chartered rights...

NOPE! Property Rights were left out on purpose.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

No, it doesn't.

If you were defending a person from being executed by the state, you are defending them from unethical treatment, and not so much as defending them for what they did to be in that situation in the first place. You're not defending someone's right to murder another (for example), but you are championing the concept of forgiveness and rehabilitation...

The example used is poor, but I see what you are trying to say.


You're reading too far into my words, Agamemnon, if you think that is the leap I am trying to make.

Perhaps I should be more clear.

There are those in here saying the law is good, those who say the law is poor, and those who are choosing to focus on the act of prostitution itself... and rightly so, as this is the root of the discussion, and is the issue that ought to be debated rather than whether or not cars should be confiscated.

So that said, why bother defending the act of prostitution if you were not a client, or interested in becoming one yourself? I don't agree that the act of prostitution is a freedom that is to be protected.. just as trafficking illicit drugs or making/distributing child porn would not be freedoms to protect. All of these have a net negative impact on society. For every good story you hear about prostitution, you'll hear 10 bad stories.

...And the whole 'exchange of sex for cash between consenting adults' argument is a load of crap. People who go to whores are too lazy or incapable of earning sex for themselves. Sex is a gift and it is an act that is cheapened immeasurably when it is paid for and compressed into a moment of two strangers rubbing genitals. It is not an exchange between two consenting adults... it is a delusional pity party attended by two depressed, confused and desperate people. It is a symbiotic relationship that seems to nuture some twisted idea of reality for both parties, when in fact it is damaging to both.

Oldest profession in the world. Give me a break. I guess it is this way because there were, are and always will be a lot of people out there who are so spineless and afraid of loving someone that they have to resort to thinking that they have to pay for a little pleasure, and that doing so is a pleasurable experience.

Flash, now that is some funny ****.

I've never purchased the services of a whore, but I'd like to see it legalized based solely on my desire to see as much harm as possible end. Like calculoso said about the 80/20 rule, I'd rather see 80 percent of the problems fixed with 20 percent of effort. Legalizing prostitution isn't going to get rid of the root causes of it, but it will help stop prevent Willy Pickton from killing 50 women and feeding them to his pigs because no one cares about the filthy prostitutes. It will help stop them from being raped, beat, stabbed, slashed and killed by their customers and pimps, and it will help stop the drug addiction that fuels the industry.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by peter12

NOPE! Property Rights were left out on purpose.

You learn something new everyday.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

No, it doesn't.

If you were defending a person from being executed by the state, you are defending them from unethical treatment, and not so much as defending them for what they did to be in that situation in the first place. You're not defending someone's right to murder another (for example), but you are championing the concept of forgiveness and rehabilitation...

Not everyone agrees that state-execution is 'unethical treatement'. I might, but there are many, many who believe certain criminal deserve to die. Some modern democratic states still engage in it, and many/most of its citizens endorse that. Just as I am 'championing the concept of forgiveness and rehabilitation' maybe some here are 'championing the concept that people are free to engage in any consensual activities they choose'. My example might have been extreme, but I don't think its in a totally different ballpark.

So that said, why bother defending the act of prostitution if you were not a client, or interested in becoming one yourself? I don't agree that the act of prostitution is a freedom that is to be protected.. just as trafficking illicit drugs or making/distributing child porn would not be freedoms to protect. All of these have a net negative impact on society. For every good story you hear about prostitution, you'll hear 10 bad stories.

I guess I just find this argument inherently flawed. This is a message board, people like to argue and debate the tiniest things for no other reason than to debate and put across their point of view. To imply, as you have, that they are more likely to be using prostitutes is... well, smearing them unjustly. People take stands on issues without necessarily being complicit with the side they choose. Whether prostitution is right or wrong, good or bad, defending it as an industry doesn't imply that one is a John. Its in bad taste to suggest that they are... no? If I say the War on Terror is wrong, am I automatically defending (and possibly associating with) terrorists? Is that what would immediately jump to mind?