Alberta police can seize and auction off johns' cars

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

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.

The difference is in each of your examples you are doing something that under no circumstances is legal. Whereas the acts involved within prostitution by themselves are legal; ie sex between consenting adults is legal, and one person gifting money to another is legal.

Here's a hypothetical for you. I go to a bar and pick up some girl, and we go back to my house. She spends the night. When I'm driving her home in the morning she starts to cry, and when I ask what is wrong she tells me that she is broke and needs $100 for food or whatever. I give it to her, drop her off, and we never see each other again.

What is the difference between my example and prostitution?

My personal objection is that I am at risk from this law because as I stated earlier I park where prostitutes hang out; and often circle around the block a few times looking for a spot. That, and while I have never done it; I am not morally oposed to prostitution.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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?

If you're wrong, Agamemnon, then this really doesn't bode well for lawyers...

[OilersBaby]

women who were picked up at the bar might lie and say it was "prostitution"...i mean they arent the ones gettin in trouble for it, but they know that the dude that picked em up is going to have his car taken away for it. i cant see many women wanted to be labelled as prostitutes, but i can see some women falsely accusing a guy of doing that..same thing with crying rape when it didnt really happen. i know it sounds absurd, but there are women out there who will do anything...

im not sure waht the law in alberta is though..do prostitutes themselves get punished? here in cali, i dont think they do cuz they are visibly everywhere in SF...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

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...

I have to say...not once did I think the peole that I was discussing this topic with are or were JOHNS. You don't have to participate in something inorder to debate it.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I have to say...not once did I think the peole that I was discussing this topic with are or were JOHNS.

Whew!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

So that said, why bother defending the act of prostitution if you were not a client, or interested in becoming one yourself?

Good lord. Who are you, Stockwell Day? That's the silliest argument ever.

Why bother arguing for or against anything, if you don't have a personal stake in it?

[Cube Inmate]

This law, and the one allowing POs to confiscate and destroy your driver's licence upon suspicion of impaired driving, WILL* both be struck down if and when someone chooses to fight them all the way up the chain of courts. That hasn't happened yet, so the Alberta gov't is getting away with enforcing unlawful laws. A de facto declaration of "guilty" based solely on suspicion of a police officer should not be allowed to fly in this country.

I mentioned earlier the absence of "property rights" in the Charter, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Property rights are a fundamental element of the common law system used in most of Canada, and even their omission from the Charter doesn't mean they don't exist--a fact which is acknowledged in the Charter itself:

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Read up on Property Rights and the Charter at this link. Looks like the history of such rights in our system go back as far as ye olde Magna Carta...which I hear was a pretty important document.
...

*(...or at least they would be struck down if we had a court system based on fact, rather than a bunch of activists bent on creating a perfect society...)

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

This law, and the one allowing POs to confiscate and destroy your driver's licence upon suspicion of impaired driving, WILL* both be struck down if and when someone chooses to fight them all the way up the chain of courts. That hasn't happened yet, so the Alberta gov't is getting away with enforcing unlawful laws. A de facto declaration of "guilty" based solely on suspicion of a police officer should not be allowed to fly in this country.

I mentioned earlier the absence of "property rights" in the Charter, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Property rights are a fundamental element of the common law system used in most of Canada, and even their omission from the Charter doesn't mean they don't exist--a fact which is acknowledged in the Charter itself:

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Read up on Property Rights and the Charter at this link. Looks like the history of such rights in our system go back as far as ye olde Magna Carta...which I hear was a pretty important document.
...

*(...or at least they would be struck down if we had a court system based on fact, rather than a bunch of activists bent on creating a perfect society...)

This was a position paper written in 1991 by a federal government employee to provide some background on the potential inclusion of property rights in a proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Directly beneath your quoted section is the following:

Case law has construed this section to mean that the common law protection of property rights is at least not threatened by the Charter.(5) Only the inclusion of property in the Charter, however, would enable an individual whose property rights had been infringed to have recourse to the enforcement section of the Charter. Subsection 24(1) states in part that "[a]nyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court ... to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances."

At the conclusion of that article there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus that Charter rights protect property in Canada. The opposite conclusion might be more evident. However, it does note that previous doctrine has indicated the importance of property rights.

[fredr123]

Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c. T-6

3‑ and 6-month suspensions, etc.
88(1) In this section,
(a) “alcohol‑related driving of a motor vehicle” means those circumstances referred to in subsection (2)(a) and (b);
(b) “bodily harm” means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature;
(c) “notice of disqualification” means a notice of disqualification referred to in subsection (2);
(d) “notice of suspension” means a notice of suspension referred to in subsection (2);
(e) “peace officer” means a police officer as defined in section 1 of the Police Act;
(f) “temporary operator’s permit” means a temporary operator’s permit issued under subsection (2).
(2) Where
(a) a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person drove a motor vehicle, and
(b) in relation to that person driving that motor vehicle, the peace officer,
(i) by reason of an analysis of the breath or blood of the person, has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person has consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration of alcohol in that person’s blood exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or
(ii) has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person while having alcohol in that person’s body failed or refused, without a reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand made on that person to supply a sample of that person’s breath or blood under section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada),
the peace officer shall, on behalf of the Registrar,
(c) in the case of a person who holds an operator’s licence,
(i) require that person to surrender to the peace officer that operator’s licence and issue to that person a temporary operator’s permit, and
(ii) serve on that person a notice of suspension of that person’s operator’s licence;
(d) in the case of a person who holds a temporary operator’s permit,
(i) require that person to surrender to the peace officer that temporary operator’s permit, and
(ii) serve on that person a notice of suspension of that temporary operator’s permit;
(e) in the case of a person who holds a licence or permit issued in another jurisdiction that permits the person to operate a motor vehicle, serve on that person a notice of disqualification
(i) disqualifying that person from operating a motor vehicle, and
(ii) disqualifying that person from applying for or holding an operator’s licence;
(f) in the case of a person who does not hold an operator’s licence, serve on that person a notice of disqualification disqualifying that person from applying for or holding an operator’s licence.

[fredr123]

Gonzalez v. Alberta (Driver Control Board) 2001 ABQB 757, affirmed [2003] A.J. No. 1115 (Alta. C.A.), appeal dismissed without reasons by the Supreme Court of Canada on April 22, 2004.

The issue with administrative license suspensions for drivers under suspicion of alcohol related driving has been judicially considered. It was upheld on appeal by our Court of Appeal. The SCC dismissed the further appeal without reasons. Game. Set. Match. For now...

Here's what the Court of Queen's Bench concluded in the Gonzalez case:

CONCLUSION

[120]In conclusion, the administrative licence suspension regime set up under the Safety Control Act is intra vires the Province of Alberta, and is not subject to challenge under the Charter of Rights. In the Gonzalez matter, the decision of the Driver Control Board does not disclose any reviewable error. In the result, the applications of Gonzalez and Seveny must be dismissed. For the reasons given the suspension of Hay’s license is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Board for reconsideration. The stay of the suspension granted to Hay is extended until the Board renders its decision.

[121]In order to give counsel time to advise their clients of this decision, and the consequences thereof, the stays of the licence suspensions previously granted to Gonzales and Seveny are hereby extended to September 20, 2001. The suspensions will therefore commence on September 21, 2001, and continue for the unexpired portion of the 90-day period. Those Applicants shall surrender their licences to the Registrar on or before September 20, 2001. Any issues with respect to the calculation of exactly how much of the suspension remains unserved I remit back to the Driver Control Board.

[jolinar of malkshor]

The easy thing with the suspension of drivers licences...is that driving is a privilage...not a right.

[pope04]

Originally Posted by fotze

Because their gizzwads end up on the sidewalk and although it may not be a public hazard per se, it is absolutely disgusting.

Remember that deal a few years ago where a young mother looked out the window and saw her daughter blowing up a used condom?

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The easy thing with the suspension of drivers licences...is that driving is a privilage...not a right.

I see a driver's licence as effectively a contract between the government and any person who meets some basic eligibility criteria. If I live up to my end of the contract, then I have a right to enjoy the benefits afforded by that contract...namely the ability to drive on Alberta's roads.

The lawyers would disagree, but they've never been known to rely on something as uncommon as "common sense."

Now, the problem is that there's no requirement for the gov to prove a breach of that contract in order to break it. The only requirement is a "reasonable and probable suspicion" by a police officer, which doesn't give me much comfort when I consider some of the meatheads who are attracted to policing. In theory, an over-zealous officer could say that you're "probably" DUI, take your licence, and then send you on your way without issuing any criminal charges (in possession of a temporary license, of course). That's a little too much power to give to any one person.

Now, I'm sure that MOST instances of this actually do happen in conjunction with true DUI (above 0.08). However, even the potential of an illegitimate case of this suspension rankles me.

Now....back to the prostitutes

[Cube Inmate]

As I said, back to prostitution:

1) My driver's licence "contract" with the Alberta government may implicitly include the provision that I won't do anything criminal with my vehicle. If I solicit prostitution in public, while in my car, I'd be in contravention of that. Thus, the gov *might* have the right to revoke or suspend my license.

2) However, the judgement cited by fredr123 above mentioned that provincial legislation cannot be designed to "fill a gap" (real or perceived) in criminal legislation which is the jurisdiction of the federal government. If revoking my license is designed for safety (as is removing drunk drivers from the road) then it might pass that smell test. If, on the other hand, it's just intended to be an additional punishment for a criminal offense, then it's outside of the province's jurisdiction. That is the case here.

3) Back to property...the gov has no involvement in my ownership of the car. I'm not licenced to own it...only to operate in on the roads. Siezure in this case is equivalent to theft, as I actually own the thing (unlike the driver's licence mentioned in the previous post).

4) I should have stayed away from this forum...anytime the word "rights" comes up, things inevitably go bad.

[leolady]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

I think it's important here to seperate two issues here: 1) the legality of prostitution (which is a long and lengthy debate) and 2) Not having innocent bystanders (ie neighborhoods) get caught up in #1) and suffering the ill effects of having this "industry in your backyard. The Herald article is written, and I think this law is written to address 2).

Whether you're for or against the legalization of prostitution I think it's safe to say that no one supports having Johns cruising residential neighborhoods and propositioning 15 yr olds on the way to school. Or having their 5 yr olds blowing balloon animals with the used condom they found in their backyard.

Quite frankly, I think the effect of this legislation is to drive the revenue model into a more "escort agency" or dial-a-hooker scenario, in an out of sight, out of mind attempt to control it. I don't think anyone think's they're going to stop this completely but at least the innocent bystanders won't get caught up by this.

I bring some perpective on this as I lived in a condo on the infamous 15th Ave stroll in Vic Park for 4 years with a window view of the main stroll. These are not "Julia Roberts" hookers but graduates of the school of hard knocks, C list stuff). I think a lot of the comments posted here come from the male perspective, and it'd be a whole lot different if you were a girl in these neighboorhoods. I heard and saw a whole mess of incidents for residents in our condo such as:

• A well dressed lawyer (blonde and attractive) for a major firm in town walked to downtown every day. Clearly not a working girl but the Johns would still circle her on the route everyday. Ditto for any reasonably attractive woman walking in our area. "Permanently creepy" were the words one girl used to describe it.
• My buddy's wife who was meeting us at my condo couldn't buzz up as I had my phone off by accident. She asked other residents in my building to let her in and they assumed she was a hooker. She then has to hang out outside our building and gets "spotted" by the Johns who mistake her for one of the regulars. She ignores them but a guy gets out of his car who can't understand why she's not responding. You have to understand she's a very neurotic and prim woman whom if you could pick the person who would react the worst to this situation - she'd be it. She freaks out and refuses to come back to my place ever again.

It was always sad/disgusting to see the cycle of life on the streets. A fresh faced pretty teen would start the streets and within 8 months she'd look like a 42 year old. I didn't blame them but I never could figure out the Johns. Who the hell needs it that bad at 7:30am in the morning on a Sunday? Shift work I guess. Quite the wide assortment of Johns too, everything from the beat up pickup from work to Chevy Avalanches and BMW's. Amazing.

The best was once when a company van picked up a girl on front of our building. Only the van has the phone number of the business written all over it. The lady next door phoned it promptly and informed them what their driver was up to...

A few resourceful Johns (mainly seniors from what I saw) figured out a way around the law, but I'm not sure if the amended law closes the loop hole. They'd park their car, get out and walk a block to proposition, before returning to their cars.

Man am I glad to be out of that hood!

Bottom line: you won't stop prostitution - but at least you'll make life a little more difficult for Johns, and it'll help give neighborhoods overrun with the sex trade a fighting chance.

I appreciate what you're trying to say but you're only giving everyone half the picture.
First of all "c - stroll" is comprised of different sections with different types of ladies in each section. It's not only girls who are "school of hard knocks" material. There are some beautiful, drug - free girls who work there, who are very smart because they get the good johns who don't want to deal with crack heads and are willing to pay more money. Now there are also the crackwhores who work there but they are not allowed on the same block as the other girls.

Also, the drug - free girls will interview any new girl who starts working down there very extensively and can easily tell if a new girl is underage. If she is, then she can't work there PERIOD!

I also used to live in that area and as a 20 year old woman I felt safer there then I do in other parts of downtown. That's because the working girls down there have good eyes and good memories. If they see someone in trouble they wont hesitate to help. Whether that means calling the cops or chasing away a creep. Like any other industry there are rules which must be followed by the collective or chaos would reign. Trust me, I've seen it in action!

[leolady]

Now for the legality part... prostitution contrary to popular belief is not illegal. SOLICITAION however is. This means that if a guy picks a girl up off the street and engages in sexual activity with her, even in his car, it's fine. Now the problem comes when a guy pays a girl for sexual favors. The first example is prostitution, the second is solicitation.

Guys do yourself a favor and call an escort instead. You pay for their time and it's much more discreet!

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by leolady

Now for the legality part... prostitution contrary to popular belief is not illegal. SOLICITAION however is. This means that if a guy picks a girl up off the street and engages in sexual activity with her, even in his car, it's fine. Now the problem comes when a guy pays a girl for sexual favors. The first example is prostitution, the second is solicitation.

Guys do yourself a favor and call an escort instead. You pay for their time and it's much more discreet!

Wrong. Prostitution is being paid for sex. Your first example, she wasn't paid and she's just a hoe. Solicitation is whistling her over to your car while parked at the side of the street and offering the sex.

Seriously though, you pulled up a thread that was 4 months old for this?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Seriously though, you pulled up a thread that was 4 months old for this?

No kidding. This easily should've been a new thread.

[brownie]

Yeah really,I thought someone on here actually got caught and lost thier wheels.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by brownie

Yeah really,I thought someone on here actually got caught and lost thier wheels.

LOL, that was my first thought.