An interesting editorial from today's Globe & Mail:
Constitution? So what?
Alberta's law targeting the customers of prostitutes is a reminder of how governments sometimes treat the members of unpopular groups when they think they can get away with it.
No one likes "johns." No interest group or popular columnist speaks for them. But it's already a criminal offence to stop one's car in a public place to ask for a prostitute's services. That places the matter where it belongs: in the criminal courts. As of yesterday, however, police forces in Alberta have the power to promptly impound the cars of those charged with that offence. (Saskatchewan and Manitoba already do so.) If an accused agrees to go to "john" school, he can get his car back. But if he wishes to plead not guilty, if he insists on his right to a trial, he is punished. And if he is ultimately convicted, Alberta keeps the car and auctions it off.
The new policy seems a clear violation of the Canadian Constitution, in two ways. The johns are treated as if they were guilty as soon as they are charged, when the Constitution insists that they are still presumed innocent; and criminal law is solely a federal concern. It's not the provinces' job to heap punishments onto the backs of offenders they particularly dislike.
But this is not the kind of law likely to meet a constitutional challenge. What accused john would want a years-long battle whose result would be to link his name forever with being a customer of prostitutes? So the government was probably not terribly concerned about being slapped down in court. The law began as a private member's bill from Harvey Cenaiko, a former police inspector who is now Solicitor-General. The government passed the law as if the Constitution did not exist.
The law's main purpose seems to be to deter potential customers from engaging in this criminal behaviour. "If they've lost their car, they have to explain that to their wife," a former Edmonton police officer said. Assume for argument's sake the deterrent works. There is no end to Draconian punishments that might be piled on to accused people. Those charged with business fraud could have their businesses padlocked if they insisted on pleading not guilty. Those charged with buying stolen goods might have their homes seized. Even if it worked, that would not make it right.
Johns and prostitutes are a nuisance, but they possess the same rights to due process as anyone else, and they should be treated that way.
Constitution? So what?
Alberta's law targeting the customers of prostitutes is a reminder of how governments sometimes treat the members of unpopular groups when they think they can get away with it.
No one likes "johns." No interest group or popular columnist speaks for them. But it's already a criminal offence to stop one's car in a public place to ask for a prostitute's services. That places the matter where it belongs: in the criminal courts. As of yesterday, however, police forces in Alberta have the power to promptly impound the cars of those charged with that offence. (Saskatchewan and Manitoba already do so.) If an accused agrees to go to "john" school, he can get his car back. But if he wishes to plead not guilty, if he insists on his right to a trial, he is punished. And if he is ultimately convicted, Alberta keeps the car and auctions it off.
The new policy seems a clear violation of the Canadian Constitution, in two ways. The johns are treated as if they were guilty as soon as they are charged, when the Constitution insists that they are still presumed innocent; and criminal law is solely a federal concern. It's not the provinces' job to heap punishments onto the backs of offenders they particularly dislike.
But this is not the kind of law likely to meet a constitutional challenge. What accused john would want a years-long battle whose result would be to link his name forever with being a customer of prostitutes? So the government was probably not terribly concerned about being slapped down in court. The law began as a private member's bill from Harvey Cenaiko, a former police inspector who is now Solicitor-General. The government passed the law as if the Constitution did not exist.
The law's main purpose seems to be to deter potential customers from engaging in this criminal behaviour. "If they've lost their car, they have to explain that to their wife," a former Edmonton police officer said. Assume for argument's sake the deterrent works. There is no end to Draconian punishments that might be piled on to accused people. Those charged with business fraud could have their businesses padlocked if they insisted on pleading not guilty. Those charged with buying stolen goods might have their homes seized. Even if it worked, that would not make it right.
Johns and prostitutes are a nuisance, but they possess the same rights to due process as anyone else, and they should be treated that way.