The War on Transvestitution
Kerry Howley | January 22, 2008, 4:05pm
Steve Gower, who is not a police officer, just an "exceptionally active neighbor" working with his neighborhood association in Atlanta, describes the many joys of harrassing local prostitutes:
When he sees someone he suspects is a prostitute talking to a possible john, he pulls up behind them, hoping his truck – with its official-looking MPSA logo and flashing yellow roof light – will scare the john away. If that doesn't work, he'll turn on his portable klieg light.
"What's really fun is catching [the prostitute] getting in the car with a john," he says. "You flip on the light and most of the time the john dumps the prostitute. I'm hitting prostitutes in the pocketbook."
The majority of prostitutes in the MPSA's patrol zone now, he says, are transgendered– "transvestitutes," as Gower and Denby call them.
Courtney-Evans, a 55-year-old preoperative transsexual, says she had pepper spray in her hands because she was frightened of Gower, who had followed her in his truck repeatedly during the preceding weeks. Gower even followed her home one night. "Wouldn't you call that stalking?" Courtney-Evans asks.
It seems that policing the sexual behavior of your neighbors might come across as invasive.
Via Bound Not Gagged, which has Gower YouTube action.
Ventifact | January 23, 2008, 12:03am | #
Nobody's arguing that people should be able to randomly threaten people with violence.
I'll have to leave aside that word "randomly" for now and simply say: I argued precisely that Gower's behavior, as described in Howley's post, does constitute a threat of violence. No, it wasn't random. But it was a threat of violence not made in response to any situation that warrants a threat of violence. I could keep reiterating each time you argue against points I don't make, but I suspect eventually it'll lose the thrill for me...
the essential point that the man has the right to do this
While I appreciate you paying me the compliment of assuming I was smart enough to see to the truth of this argument and simply chose to ignore it, I cannot reciprocate. I fear you really are simply not catching my drift here. (Fortunately this means I won't be resorting to calling you a liar as you did me...) My essential point is that Gower does not have the right to threaten someone else unless in self-defense, and in at least the case of Courtney-Evans as described above, he was in fact behaving threateningly. If you'd care to read what I wrote, you might discover why I assert this.
and I like I said, if you think he's threatening or intimidating, pick up the phone and call the cops or the DA. Why? Because that's a legal charge to be made by the law, not you as a smear attempt.
Maybe I have already. If I said I did, or if in reality I had,
would it impact whether or not my argument is true? You're keeping going on some dandy dancing yourself there... (By the way, I'm not sure you can report crimes if you've only read about them on a blog.)
Your "point" seems to be that it is not legitimate to assert a criminal activity in public venue separately from attempting to have authorities prosecute that criminal. I'd like to welcome you to
Reason magazine's blog and discussion forum,
Hit & Run (often shortened to "H&R"). People here tend to do a lot of "smear attempt[s]", complaining that many of the things going on around us are in fact unlawful -- even at times unconstitutional -- without simply calling the relevant prosecutor and forgetting the matter.
By the way, the man in the video called the women/men prostitutes. Is that not a claim to be made by legal authorities only? Why didn't he call the police instead of smearing those people on the corner by publishing malicious legal claims recorded on video but unsupported by any legal authorities?
Also, in terms of demand, you're going against the economics of the evolutionary drive, you're sure to lose no matter what.
As opposed to going against the evolutionary drive to eat (or maintain a stable brain chemistry)? Why would the prostitutes be so much more tractable? Don't they tend to be the party, in comparison to Johns, with little to lose?
Ventifact | January 23, 2008, 4:00am | #
Randian, you seem to have moved yourself entirely into the position that the whole topic under discussion in this thread is unworthy of discussion because we lack first-hand knowledge or involvement in the situation. Again, allow me to introduce you to the world of online discussion forums. What good does it do me to comment on something? No good, directly.
And although often H&R focuses on what
should be legal, it really does often focus on what
is legal. Take the recurring theme of violent police raids, where discussion often moves to false evidence plants and the failure to enact repercussions for negligent/malicious officers. And if we want to be speaking strictly, then all discussion of constitutionality is a question of whether activities contradict the so-called highest law in the land. Any time we discuss eminent domain, criminal prosecution procedure, free speech, states' rights, gun ownership, police/surveillance powers, presidential powers, or drug use, we are discussing whether a policy is in accordance with basic U.S. law.
It does the same good to determine an activity should be legal, or that some other policy is unconstitutional, as to decide that some other activity is also illegal (or unethical). (Although you fudge in favor of your point by describing it as "from afar" when someone comments on a crime, but not for other topics of discussion.) You seem to be having trouble with my "angle" because you are implicitly alleging no value for discussion that is not directly connected to action. Rand did write that knowledge without action was abominable, but I certainly doubt she meant that every bit of knowledge and pondering would only be legitimate with immediate and directly resultant action springing therefrom (otherwise what validity would a novel have, and how could an author produce one?).
Do you tell forum posters who declare a law undesirable (the
should) that they should write to their members of Congress but stop bringing it up here? Are such people, when they learn of a law from an H&R post instead of witnessing its action firsthand, unqualified to have an opinion because they are viewing the subject "from afar"?
What distinguishes this topic, and my particular assertion that Gower is implicitly and entirely inappropriately threatening Courtney-Evans, as having no legitimate place in discussion? It seems you will not refute my claim, only insist on ignoring it (or declaring it a "smear").
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
