No, your Conservative Party is not the equivalent of the Tea Party in the US. The Tea Party is for limited government and Nanny State government like what you have in Canada.
3:30 EST Bill - 36 will be debated in a few minutes http://www.cpac.ca/en
- Thread starter Fred Zed
- Start date
No, your Conservative Party is not the equivalent of the Tea Party in the US. The Tea Party is for limited government and Nanny State government like what you have in Canada.
bookerl,
the point i believe beav is making is you did not have to screen much "back then" or "right now" but will likely have to once or if the new law is passed
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know
So when do you think it could take effect IYO ? First quarter of 2015 ?
The POINT I believe Beav is making is you did not have to screen much "back then" or "right now" BUT will likely have to once or if the new law is passed
But now, how are they to screen without letting the undercover cop know that they are running a sex business? Why would an undercover cop go undercover and arrest one john if she could just arrest the owner right during the interview?
I think it's possible they could ask the SCC an extension for the deadline if they need to.
Usually it can be very long. For exemple, the cyberbullying bill (C-13) was tabled last october and is now in committee since april.
Usually it can be very long. For exemple, the cyberbullying bill (C-13) was tabled last october and is now in committee since april.
They should behave like agents, ask the women what THEY are looking for and ask what THEY expect of him as an agent. Maybe it will switch more to a system where SP are more like indies with the support of a common agent, and less like employees.
And what about Johns - what should they do ?
One of the things Johns can do is meet regularly in GTs to discuss legal issues in a hypothetical manner. They should not break the law during such GTs and should not be providing tips to one another or promoting prostitution. Any bright ideas should never be put on forums.
Also in general they should not write indiscreet reviews. Anything more than the looks of the girl and his state of mind at the end should be avoided.
If that means coming up with a dud a bit more often, then that is just the cost of doing business in the new regime.
One of the things Johns can do is meet regularly in GTs to discuss legal issues in a hypothetical manner. They should not break the law during such GTs and should not be providing tips to one another or promoting prostitution. Any bright ideas should never be put on forums.
Also in general they should not write indiscreet reviews. Anything more than the looks of the girl and his state of mind at the end should be avoided.
If that means coming up with a dud a bit more often, then that is just the cost of doing business in the new regime.
Yes a screening must be done but it was like this also 20 years ago police tried to infiltrate escort agencies some where and got busted !
What the female cop can't do is to get naked !after she is naked its over and if she ask its for what is for pics but not without government issue picture idea before ?
Screening sure thing "crab the bookers coclk" ultra funny !!!!Ouf !!!LoL
In 20 years of interviewing young females "I have never once ask for a chick to grab my Dick"
Regards all
What the female cop can't do is to get naked !after she is naked its over and if she ask its for what is for pics but not without government issue picture idea before ?
Screening sure thing "crab the bookers coclk" ultra funny !!!!Ouf !!!LoL
In 20 years of interviewing young females "I have never once ask for a chick to grab my Dick"
Regards all
BookerL,
You may think it's funny but in the past I met escorts in the USA who asked me to grab their tits to establish that I was not a cop. I recall this happening in Boston with an outcall escort I saw at a Boston hotel, during the summer of 2001. She asked me to touch her tits, this was before any further business was transacted and within 30 seconds of walking through my door. After I had groped a handful of tit, she relaxed and we got down to business. She later told me all escorts at her agency screened in that fashion.
If Peter MacKay has his way, he will be sending female undercovers to get hired at the agencies. There is no way else to enforce the law against Johns. You need witnesses - no witness, no case in court that will stand up. It will be up to the agencies to thwart this infiltration by LE agents. It is a time-honored method of screening in many venues to ask those would be escorts to touch a tit, pussy or dick as applicable. Cops cannot do it, infiltration is over, end of story. It is really that simple. And if a lady is interviewing to be an escort, it is not the first time she will be asked to touch a dick.
You may think it's funny but in the past I met escorts in the USA who asked me to grab their tits to establish that I was not a cop. I recall this happening in Boston with an outcall escort I saw at a Boston hotel, during the summer of 2001. She asked me to touch her tits, this was before any further business was transacted and within 30 seconds of walking through my door. After I had groped a handful of tit, she relaxed and we got down to business. She later told me all escorts at her agency screened in that fashion.
If Peter MacKay has his way, he will be sending female undercovers to get hired at the agencies. There is no way else to enforce the law against Johns. You need witnesses - no witness, no case in court that will stand up. It will be up to the agencies to thwart this infiltration by LE agents. It is a time-honored method of screening in many venues to ask those would be escorts to touch a tit, pussy or dick as applicable. Cops cannot do it, infiltration is over, end of story. It is really that simple. And if a lady is interviewing to be an escort, it is not the first time she will be asked to touch a dick.
Are you sure about it ? If they catch you with a girl who is knonwn to work as an escort during her work time, they will just have to check your phone to have some evidences.
Phone records proved that you made a phone call, they don't prove what you talked about. A denial of a discussion about sex cannot be disproven. You can easily say you dialed the wrong number. I really do not understand your point.
If you are caught with an escort either she will testify against you or not, my bet is she is a no show in Court which is why prosecutors will not rely on escorts as witnesses and instead use undercover cops to set up a prosecution. That is the only way it works.
Phone record evidence does not convict people. You need a witness.
Even if they can prove you spent one hour with a known sex workers, that is not illegal. They have to prove you exchanged sex for money.
If you go to the house of a known drug dealer, that does not prove you did something illegal. Although the police could decide to put you under surveillance in the course of their investigation. It's very unlikely they would do that for an escort unless there is reason to believe there is a serious crime, such as trafficking or underage. The pay-off must justify the resource they put in an investigation.
I think the police can arrest clients on a presumption and hope they admit their guilt. That way they get a summary conviction. Otherwise it will be impossible to prove anything in court without evidence.
If you go to the house of a known drug dealer, that does not prove you did something illegal. Although the police could decide to put you under surveillance in the course of their investigation. It's very unlikely they would do that for an escort unless there is reason to believe there is a serious crime, such as trafficking or underage. The pay-off must justify the resource they put in an investigation.
I think the police can arrest clients on a presumption and hope they admit their guilt. That way they get a summary conviction. Otherwise it will be impossible to prove anything in court without evidence.
My northern brothers, welcome to the world of the US hobbyist.
If this thing passes, it will not be business as usual but it will not wipe out the hobby. There will be some precautions that johns will have to take.
Stick will well reviewed (both recently reviewed and reviewed by credible hobbyist) providers/agencies.
Providers/Agencies may begin to screen clients.
Agencies may need to better screen girls.
Rates will go up to cover legal fund.
Keep your mouth shut if snared in a sting.
TOFTT will really be more risky.
For those who want to be extra cautious, get a prepaid mobile (assuming you can get one in Canada without any ID).
If this thing passes, it will not be business as usual but it will not wipe out the hobby. There will be some precautions that johns will have to take.
Stick will well reviewed (both recently reviewed and reviewed by credible hobbyist) providers/agencies.
Providers/Agencies may begin to screen clients.
Agencies may need to better screen girls.
Rates will go up to cover legal fund.
Keep your mouth shut if snared in a sting.
TOFTT will really be more risky.
For those who want to be extra cautious, get a prepaid mobile (assuming you can get one in Canada without any ID).
While I should and do defer to EB in accepting that convictions will be extremely difficult to obtain, there are other, practical considerations.
Firstly, many of us fear being the personal and/or professional consequences of being outed for hiring a prostitute. Secondly, it is prohibitively expensive for most of us to engage a lawyer to defend ourselves in court. Not all of us can comfortably pay, at a bare minimum, a few thousand dollars for legal fees. To avoid the publicity or expense, some of us may plead guilty to avoid a court appearance or severely reduce "hobbying" due to fear of arrest.
The legal authorities can harass an agency out of existence by initiating court cases even when they are well aware that they have little hope of a conviction.
This is not far fetched. The laws pertaining to gambling in Canada are also quite convoluted. For instance, it is legal to charge players a fixed fee to play poker. It is, however, illegal to take a percentage of each poker pot. Police have destroyed perfectly legal poker games by raiding them, throwing all the participants in jail for the night and confiscating all the money they found. They may not have succeeded in convicting anyone and even had to return the money (after holding it for 6 months), but the players didn't return to venues which were raided.
Firstly, many of us fear being the personal and/or professional consequences of being outed for hiring a prostitute. Secondly, it is prohibitively expensive for most of us to engage a lawyer to defend ourselves in court. Not all of us can comfortably pay, at a bare minimum, a few thousand dollars for legal fees. To avoid the publicity or expense, some of us may plead guilty to avoid a court appearance or severely reduce "hobbying" due to fear of arrest.
The legal authorities can harass an agency out of existence by initiating court cases even when they are well aware that they have little hope of a conviction.
This is not far fetched. The laws pertaining to gambling in Canada are also quite convoluted. For instance, it is legal to charge players a fixed fee to play poker. It is, however, illegal to take a percentage of each poker pot. Police have destroyed perfectly legal poker games by raiding them, throwing all the participants in jail for the night and confiscating all the money they found. They may not have succeeded in convicting anyone and even had to return the money (after holding it for 6 months), but the players didn't return to venues which were raided.
One part of this proposed law gives LE incredible leverage and does not exempt SP's, which is the provision which says if the act is done where minors under 18 can reasonably be expected.
Yes it covers street prostitution, but it covers hotels and SP's and john's residences. A detective can use the leverage of giving SP's immunity if she testifies against the john.
This law was deviously crafted to favor LE in ways not yet seen. I don't think the courts will uphold it and who knows if it will pass. But to say the only way for LE to get a conviction of a guy is undercover is a little naive, imo.
Also, grabbing an undercovers breast or penis has gotten some in some localities in the US sexual assault charges.
Yes it covers street prostitution, but it covers hotels and SP's and john's residences. A detective can use the leverage of giving SP's immunity if she testifies against the john.
This law was deviously crafted to favor LE in ways not yet seen. I don't think the courts will uphold it and who knows if it will pass. But to say the only way for LE to get a conviction of a guy is undercover is a little naive, imo.
Also, grabbing an undercovers breast or penis has gotten some in some localities in the US sexual assault charges.
The Canadian prosecutors would have the same concerns that US prosecutors have now. If a prosecutor presses a case built on circumstantial evidence which is essentially bullshit in court, a good defense attorney will hand the prosecutor his ass on a silver platter. These cases get pleaded out in the early stages. The vast majority of all criminal defense work I have done in the past (admittedly a small part of my practice) has involved overcharged bullshit, based on circumstantial evidence, and most of it got nolled (that means the prosecution was dropped and the client was put on conditional or conditionless probation). Usually I only took those cases because I had a lucrative personal injury case with a client who got busted, or his kid got busted, and I was paid for the criminal case out of the proceeds of the personal injury case, on top of what I made as a fee on that personal injury case.
On the other hand, if the prosecution has a solid witness, the case has legs. I attended a murder trial in Connecticut about 20 years ago, as a spectator, and watched as the defense went down in flames because the prosecutor's star witness, defendant's mistress who was given an immunity deal, testified she helped the defendant strangle his wife. She held the pillow and he pushed it. He went down, big time.
Bottom line on prosecutions against johns is you need a live witness, whether it's an undercover or an escort. Escorts are not showing in court and undercovers can be screened for. If you do not have a live witness it would be very difficult to prove anything in court. Cases do not go to trial and are usually not even prosecuted if all that there is is circumstantial bullshit.
I listed to Peter MacKay yesterday talk about this proposed law and I heard absolutely nothing come out of his mouth as to how they planned on enforcing it if enacted. I have been told that this whole presentation was an exercise in electioneering by MacKay. I don't know enough about CDN politics to agree or disagree with that.
On the other hand, if the prosecution has a solid witness, the case has legs. I attended a murder trial in Connecticut about 20 years ago, as a spectator, and watched as the defense went down in flames because the prosecutor's star witness, defendant's mistress who was given an immunity deal, testified she helped the defendant strangle his wife. She held the pillow and he pushed it. He went down, big time.
Bottom line on prosecutions against johns is you need a live witness, whether it's an undercover or an escort. Escorts are not showing in court and undercovers can be screened for. If you do not have a live witness it would be very difficult to prove anything in court. Cases do not go to trial and are usually not even prosecuted if all that there is is circumstantial bullshit.
I listed to Peter MacKay yesterday talk about this proposed law and I heard absolutely nothing come out of his mouth as to how they planned on enforcing it if enacted. I have been told that this whole presentation was an exercise in electioneering by MacKay. I don't know enough about CDN politics to agree or disagree with that.
I don't know Beav, but you should know better since the Law is your business. Arrestees have a bad habit of talking to the police even after they are told they can remain silent. Police use tatics like if you talk to us, it will be a lot easier for you. If you don't we will give your name and booking photo to the newspapers. You have had clients who have talked, haven't you?
Plus, in the scenario I wrote where they threaten the SP with prosecution, most SP's would testify against the john, take a short vacation, and open up shop under a new name.
Plus, in the scenario I wrote where they threaten the SP with prosecution, most SP's would testify against the john, take a short vacation, and open up shop under a new name.
What will be John's risk ? A fine ? Jail ? Any police record ?
Yesterday, P.Mackay talked a lot about what the chidren can see. Of course that is a way to make his law passed, but I think it could also be a sign that they will mostly try to eradicate street prostitution, and just keep up appearance like a lot of law in this continent (I was shoked when I arrive in North America to get a 140$ fine just cause I drank a beer on a public place, with the policeman telling me that I could have drunk it if she was covered... You guys are used to this law, but I still can't believe how hypocritical it is. I now undersand that the most important thing here is to bury heads in the sand and keep up appearances.)
Yesterday, P.Mackay talked a lot about what the chidren can see. Of course that is a way to make his law passed, but I think it could also be a sign that they will mostly try to eradicate street prostitution, and just keep up appearance like a lot of law in this continent (I was shoked when I arrive in North America to get a 140$ fine just cause I drank a beer on a public place, with the policeman telling me that I could have drunk it if she was covered... You guys are used to this law, but I still can't believe how hypocritical it is. I now undersand that the most important thing here is to bury heads in the sand and keep up appearances.)
man77777,
I think your analysis in the last post is mostly correct. A john who finds himself arrested will likely pay a fine/court costs is my guess, but it is a guess since I am not familiar with the Canadian court system.
I think your analysis in the last post is mostly correct. A john who finds himself arrested will likely pay a fine/court costs is my guess, but it is a guess since I am not familiar with the Canadian court system.
Similar threads
