Like every pawnbroker, I am offended when someone says that I am disreputable or operate in a criminal manner.   I am further disturbed when that person continues to describe the business using the Hollywood image of the 1940’s which was never remotely true at any time.

 

In his Nov. 26^th article, (Vancouver Police) Sgt. Mark Tonner wrote "Selling loot to pawn shops brings 10 cents on the retail dollar, meaning theft to the tune of a thousand a day to support a hundred-dollar habit."

 

This statement is not only wrong, it is libellous. I sent the Sgt. an email questioning his sources and asking him to name names.  He did not have the courtesy to reply or even acknowledge my email. 

 

His response was to write a long diatribe against myself and pawnbrokers in general. (Vancouver Province Jan. 7/07)   The problem I have with Sgt. Tonner’s opinions is that he presents them as facts.  Clearly, his mind is made up – all pawnbrokers are fences or criminals who routinely deal in stolen property.  If this were the case, I can only wonder why the police dept. tolerates our existence.  Two Vancouver pawnbrokers have been in business for over 85 years.  Obviously we are not criminals!

 

In response to my request for Sgt. Tonner to name names, he sidesteps the issue and quotes his “reliable sources” which he concedes are drug addicted thieves.  He further states that “There is no reason to take the word of a pawnbroker over that of a street person, if we’re being open minded and non-judgmental”.  Open minded?  I think that the Sgt. amply demonstrates that his mind is made up, never mind the facts.

 

To prove his point, Sgt. Tonner cites 4 instances where people received very small amounts of money for valuable items.  Of the 300,000 (Sgt. Tonner’s number) transactions that take place in pawnshops and second hand shops annually in Vancouver, I don’t doubt that many such anomalies can be found.  This is not a normal transaction or “business as usual”.  What about the other 299,996 transactions?  Sgt. Tonner also fails to name the pawnshops.  Why is that?  Perhaps they were not pawnbrokers, but second hand dealers.

 

What is wrong with the Jan. 7^th article?  Everything, from the title to the final paragraph.  The headline “Pawnshops’ fight with police doesn’t add up” implies that pawnbrokers are fighting with the police.  This is not true.  Our battle is with City Hall regarding the over-regulation of the industry.  The sub-title implies that pawnbrokers won’t work with the law to reduce property theft.  This is patently false as well.  Pawnbrokers are among the most regulated businesses in this province and have been collecting and relaying customer and merchandise information to the police dept. on a daily basis for over 100 years.  To call us uncooperative is plain wrong and downright insulting.  Even the caption below the photo is misleading in the extreme.

 

Sgt. Tonner then explains the Xtract reporting system and how wonderful it has been, allowing the police dept. to recover 300% more stolen property.  The facts are this:  all of Sgt. Tonner’s numbers are hearsay and unsubstantiated.  The police can and do say whatever they want to show how good they are and to get what they want from City Council.  They get away with it because they control the data.  I know.  When I made inquires under the Freedom of Information Act, I received the same answer to all of my questions:  “The data is not available at this time”. 

 

Sgt. Tonner also states that I am against the Xtract reporting system.  This is also completely false.  My beef is the reporting of personal information, and the reporting of that information over the internet, not exactly the most secure means of doing so.  I have no problem with reporting incoming goods over the internet.

 

Sgt. Tonner goes on to discuss my challenge to the New Westminster Second Hand Dealers By-Law.  Cleary he does not understand the issue.  Pawnbrokers have no problem with gathering personal and property information.  We do have a problem with turning over the personal information on a daily basis simply because the police demand it and City Hall forces us to do so.  The purpose of the police report is to locate and recover stolen property and to have a paper trail with which to prosecute the guilty.  The police have no need for any customer information until an item is found to be stolen or suspect.  When that happens, we will cheerfully provide the personal information. 

 

The court challenge is not about impeding the police.  It is about the privacy rights of our clients.  Our position is simple:  no one should be treated like a criminal without just cause.  Pawning one’s diamond ring or laptop computer is not justification for suspicion. Why should our clients be deprived of rights that everyone else receives under the Charter of Rights.  After all, the foundation of our legal system is “innocent until proven guilty”.

 

This issue was forwarded to the B.C. Privacy Commissioner in 2003.  After 3 years, he released his opinion in Aug. 2006, totally backing the pawnbrokers’ position.  That report can be found on the internet at:

 

http://www.oipcbc.org/publications/SurveillanceBylawDiscussionPaper.pdf

 

In a similar suit in Ontario in 2006, the Ontario Privacy Commissioner intervened on behalf of a second hand dealer who challenged his city’s bylaw.  Both cases are under appeal and will be heard very soon, Jan. 12^th for the Ontario case.   As an aside, no serious case involving a pawnbroker has ever been settled at the lower court level.

 

Perhaps you will recall the B.C. Government’s scrap with Costco last year.  The government demanded that Costco produce all transaction records of B.C. residents who made purchases in Alberta, thinking that those buyers had failed to remit the proper sales tax to B.C.  After filing a lawsuit, Costco responded with a countersuit.  After a short tussle, the government realized that it could not win in court and dropped the entire matter.  To me, this is the same issue that pawnbrokers are fighting in court:  fishing for evidence without justification or a warrant.  Why should pawnbrokers and second hand dealers have to hand over a customer list every day when the police would require a search warrant to obtain that information at any other type of business?

 

Another reason for not releasing personal information to the police is demonstrated by Sgt. Tonner’s revelation of the four cases  he cited.  This is proprietary information that should not be made public but he chose to do so anyway.  It is evident to me that the less personal information the police receive the better, as there doesn’t seem to be any limitation on what they can do with it.

 

If Sgt. Tonner was a fair-minded individual, he would change his tune.  I tried to open a dialog with him and his response was to publish further insults and misinformation.  It is a shame to see someone in authority get it so wrong and be so confident that he is right.  If Sgt. Tonner thinks pawnbrokers are uncooperative now, perhaps he should try to show a molecule of respect instead of slamming legitimate businesses at every opportunity.

 

 

 

 

Michael Isman