I have a few friends who have been conned by escorts in Toronto and Montreal since it is now LEGAL to advertise, but illegal to pay. These friends paid for services first and the girls tried to not provide ANY services by 1. Asking for more money 2. Trying to scare the guys 2. Trying to waste time and saying "time is almost up". 4. saying , they are not turned on yet quite enough. BE CAREFUL!
Escorts conning guys (since new laws)
- Thread starter azzaro
- Start date
These incidents with my friends happened at Agencies who have been in business for quite a long time and, at this time, the agencies and many "reputable" indys think it is time to make more money by conning/duping unsuspecting visitors from other provices/tourists from USA.
This is incorrect, is it illegal to advertise the sale of sexual services.
as lgna69xxx suggested, the best protection against scams is to see well-reviewed and reputable independents and agencies. Taking a chance on an unknown, often just to save a few bucks is a definite risk. It's too bad there are girls like that out there - they were there before the laws came into effect and they just have more power over the clients now.
Then they need to post reviews. Others should be warned of this behaviour so that the same thing won't happen to them.
You are totally wrong. Starting yesterday (Sunday), it is LEGAL to advertise and ILLEGAL to pay for it under the new Bill.
Here is the link to the C-36 Bill on CTV:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conf...ion-laws-in-canada-bill-c-36-primer-1.1902440
There is a very popular agency on here that I just noticed is still listing on their website (not on Merb tho) as offering the following services: GFE, BBBJ, ANAL, DFK, DATY etc.... technically, this is illegal under c36, correct?
Sorry for being at Internet Cro-Magnon age. I don't know exactly what a host and a server are. My understanding is that it's illegal to host sexual services publicity. So if everyone played by the rule, for her to make publicity of her own services, she would have to be her own host or server or whatever. Is this possible or isn't there always someone upstream committing a crime?
Haha..cool question dude!. I was wondering about that too. Yeah, who would want to host such escort ads on a CLIENT/SERVER level (computer jargon) if it will get them into trouble. And yeah, he/she who puts up ads will have to have their own CLIENT?SERVER.
Minimum sentencing would be another example that has important consequences for prosecution, (although it has the opposite effect of giving almost all the power to the prosecutor).
There is no way to know what is legal until a judge actually makes a decision on a case. The legal advice that NOW magazine got from Alan Young was that it was legal for the publisher so long as the ad was posted by the SP herself. No matter if it's a server or paper, the owner is not ''advertising''. They are just hosting people who advertise themselves. This is of course debatable, but it seems the most logical legal position in the circumstances. This is not to be confused with the material benefit provision which is a different thing.
But Reverdy what are the do-gooders gonna do? People are having sex....sex without love. This has to be stopped! In the USA in some of the worst cities in America where murder, rape, and all violent crimes are being committed at a record pace the vice squad will be working feverishly with BackPage set-ups and by policing street walkers at the expense of allowing murder and home evasion. They have got their priorities straight.
Sex without love has to be stopped once in for all. Too many men are smiling. This is no good!!!!
This is one of the reasons (at least I'd like to think) that a C-36 type law would not be enacted in the US. Beyond giving license to escorts to solicit in a densely populated area like NYC, it opens up an invitation to organized crime to profit by conning prospective clients. I can't speak for Canadian law but extortion is a crime in the US
Thanks for pointing that out, especially that he happens to be a quite credible source lol. I think NOW is probably the best protected newspaper in the country. I doubt any prosecutor would like to launch a court battle on this issue against him!
I'm pretty sure the article was posted a while ago, but here is the link about NOW.
https://nowtoronto.com/news/now-statement-on-canada%27s-new-anti-prostitution-laws/
The law is really totally open to interpretation. It's good for the cops because they can in theory arrest anyone for just about anything. It's also bad for them, because it would be easy for the accused to make a defense based on a reasonable interpretation of the law.
It's like a one-shot weapon. They can use it to shut down some business and then the law will get destroyed in court.
https://nowtoronto.com/news/now-statement-on-canada%27s-new-anti-prostitution-laws/
The law is really totally open to interpretation. It's good for the cops because they can in theory arrest anyone for just about anything. It's also bad for them, because it would be easy for the accused to make a defense based on a reasonable interpretation of the law.
It's like a one-shot weapon. They can use it to shut down some business and then the law will get destroyed in court.
Don't forget that people talk with a lot of rhetoric on both sides. Pivot and Stella are advocating for sex workers, therefore they are likely to adopt a worse-case-scenario interpretation. Their goal at the time was to show how bad and broad the law could be. They don't lie like prohibitionists, but they present things a certain way to make a strong point against the law. When it come to actual legal counsel for a business things are more nuanced.
Also, the law says ''Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer...''. This seems to let ISP off the hook, as they cannot be expected to know everything people are doing. It would be like arresting the newspaper delivery boy because the paper contains some sex ads.
And just like ''selling'', for advertisement SP are still committing an offense, but cannot be prosecuted. Still I think a judge can give a warrant to get the material removed even if no one is charged. Even if an SP cannot be charged, her computer and stuff could be seized as evidence.
So..if the escorts cannot advertise on the internet, the whole thin moves to the streets. It is EXACTLY opposite of what the BILL was trying to do..to protect escorts from harm on the streets (escorts advertising on the internet, according the BILL are all victims). I would say less than 1% are victims, the other 99% are college dropouts, drug users, party girls, gangsta girls and all around con artists who have figured out an easy lifestyle on how to make lots and lots of money, very very quickly. The victims, I would say would, would include women who cannot find jobs after having been to all the government agencies and asking for help and were not helped at all.
The bill is trying to turn sex workers into victims. And that's exactly what it will do...
Similar threads
