They apply it according to their reality, not to the federal government's fantasy. Prostitution laws are among the least enforced. I would bet anything the feds know this kind of law doesn't work. It's just to ''send a message''.
Escorts conning guys (since new laws)
- Thread starter azzaro
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
They apply it according to their reality, not to the federal government's fantasy. Prostitution laws are among the least enforced. I would bet anything the feds know this kind of law doesn't work. It's just to ''send a message''.
I agree. But the message being sent is to organized crime to come in and take over and make victims of both customers and escorts. Plenty of hints on this discussion that that is what has started to happen.
The problem in the USA with respect to commercial sex, and it extends to pickups and dating, is the high price in order to get "Montreal style" service. 80 percent of the guys want to fuck 20 percent of the women, and those 20 percent of women have figured out how to capitalize. Canada has a bit more of a socialistic streak in it, and that has some good points. Lots of great looking women providing service at a reasonable price without having unrealistic expectations. Same with Europe.
I agree with the analysis as it pertains to dating. However in the domain of commercial sex, as wealthy Sugar Daddys are rare, the top 20% need several men, so the balance of power is with us men. It is not because of socialism that even a lower middle class income is difficult to obtain for young people with better than average training and almost impossible outside the sex trade for the untrained.
I was amazed by a review I saw yesterday of a DDG who provided excellent service at $200, and still the reviewer complained that she did not appear wildly enthusiastic.
I expect more cases of SPs blackmailing clients in Canada. Under C-36, an SP can have a client charged without exposing herself to prosecution. She can then change her nom de plume, location and/or pictures and go after new victims.
I expect more cases of SPs blackmailing clients in Canada. Under C-36, an SP can have a client charged without exposing herself to prosecution. She can then change her nom de plume, location and/or pictures and go after new victims.
And of course Organized Crime is going to make sure this conning scam continues with their input. They will take a huge cut from the escorts, endanger their lives with violence and the poor JOHN is left with his dick in his hand and conned out of his 200 cash.
Canada, as part of the Commonweath, has access to a large amount of data regarding the issue of prostitution. Australia and New Zealand have legalized brothels which are licensed, monitored, taxed and watched by the respective governments. That takes care of 99% of the problem of victimization.The other 1% is where the governments there concentrate on, which is the women are really being victimized which are basically street walkers and in some rare cases, human slavery girls from Asian countries. Some women are also compelled to do it because of economic necessity, lack of advice and help from government agencies when they do ask for help. Therefor, Outreach programs to identify women who are there because of survival needs must be strengthened.
I believe that is correct. Lawmakers recognize that they cannot constitutionally make an act (or something closely related to an act) legal for some parties and illegal for others. So they legislate prosecutorial discretion. One obvious problem is that it perverts the separation of powers.
Prosecutorial discretion exists for a reason. If would not be reasonable to make a law stating that a man commits a crime for stealing bread but a woman does not. A prosecutor might decide that a woman stealing bread to feed a small child should not be prosecuted, but that a man (or another woman) stealing in order to not have to pay should be prosecuted.
When the legislature declares that all women (except those soliciting near a school) are victims deserving prosecutorial discretion, it has clearly acted unreasonably and has gone beyond its rightful powers. Escorts conning their customers makes the legislature look
particularly silly. Remind us who the victims are again.
I cannot think of another instance where the legislature in the western world legislated prosecutorial discretion, rather than rightfully leaving the decision to prosecutors, or even to the police. Most policemen use discretion regularly in their jobs.
C36 is not gender specific. It makes the purchasing of sexual services illegal, but the selling of sexual services is legal unless it is done near a school area. You could argue that it makes the seller an accessory to the crime of buying sexual services. It will no doubt all be argued in the courts.
Conning Johns because prostitution is illegal in the US happens a good deal.
The types of cons jobs described I have seen on US boards go from:
1) The boyfriend (pimp) interrupts you after 5 to 10 minutes and tells you to leave.
2) The girl tells you after collecting the money it is a companionship deal, no contact, what do you want to talk about?
3) The lady answering the phone says she someone has to meet you first; you meet a guy on the street and he tells you to give him the money and he will give you the address. He has a "recent" picture of the girl, who he says is a nymphomaniac and just graduate high school last year. If you give him the money, you get an address of some random apartment and he disappears with your $$$.
4) The moneypak deal. The phone person or girl con herself asks you to buy a moneypak from a drug store and she asks you to give her the number and then she'll tell you her address and apartment number.
5) The total beat down and rob.
Curiously, most of these con jobs are advertised on sites like backpage, etc. and they say no black guys or no black guys under 35. I guess imposing large black guys are more difficult targets, as they may be more inclined to fight back, but they could attract a big white linebacker?
The perps think that since the act is illegal chances are you won't go to police. Many police districts have the policy of prosecuting the more serious crimes, meaning if you were soliciting and get robbed, since the robbery and assault is more serious, they will not press charges against the john who solicited. But there is a problem in anyone assuming this. Some LE are bastards and will prosecute both parties. I have read accounts of both policies.
So it could happen if you do venture out of the "trusted" agencies, as lgna said.
The types of cons jobs described I have seen on US boards go from:
1) The boyfriend (pimp) interrupts you after 5 to 10 minutes and tells you to leave.
2) The girl tells you after collecting the money it is a companionship deal, no contact, what do you want to talk about?
3) The lady answering the phone says she someone has to meet you first; you meet a guy on the street and he tells you to give him the money and he will give you the address. He has a "recent" picture of the girl, who he says is a nymphomaniac and just graduate high school last year. If you give him the money, you get an address of some random apartment and he disappears with your $$$.
4) The moneypak deal. The phone person or girl con herself asks you to buy a moneypak from a drug store and she asks you to give her the number and then she'll tell you her address and apartment number.
5) The total beat down and rob.
Curiously, most of these con jobs are advertised on sites like backpage, etc. and they say no black guys or no black guys under 35. I guess imposing large black guys are more difficult targets, as they may be more inclined to fight back, but they could attract a big white linebacker?
The perps think that since the act is illegal chances are you won't go to police. Many police districts have the policy of prosecuting the more serious crimes, meaning if you were soliciting and get robbed, since the robbery and assault is more serious, they will not press charges against the john who solicited. But there is a problem in anyone assuming this. Some LE are bastards and will prosecute both parties. I have read accounts of both policies.
So it could happen if you do venture out of the "trusted" agencies, as lgna said.
And of course Organized Crime is going to make sure this conning scam continues with their input. They will take a huge cut from the escorts, endanger their lives with violence and the poor JOHN is left with his dick in his hand and conned out of his 200 cash.
Believe it or not, in the late 1970's and probably before that when I had no knowledge of it, when prostitution was fairly open in NYC, organized crime was involved and it was much less dangerous than it is now. They ran it like a business, where if any girl did not provide good customer service, they fired her. They did not tolerate guys mistreating girls. No one would get beat up unless they assaulted a girl. They always had some big goon in the front saying hello and goodbye when you left.
You said organized crime and I remember the one place that I liked to visit. It was certainly mobbed up. I think everyone felt safer and less inclined to cause trouble. I remember one girl who was ultra hot but she was busy at the time. I asked for her and the big guy on duty said she was let go because she did nothing except to waste the session time. He said she got his eye too, but so many guys complained about her that they let her go after a day.
I merely used genders in the example to make it easier to read. To be more precise, I could have said Party A and Party B.
The objection I have to your example is that it is my understanding that selling sex is actually illegal, which allowed Mackay to happily proclaim that prostitution is now illegal in Canada. The legislature simply chose to make one party exempt from prosecution (unless that party voids the exemption by transacting too near a school), which is why I pointed out that the legislature seems to now be in the business of prosecutorial discretion. The media simply shortcuts all of this by saying that selling sex is legal in Canada, which I believe several posters have noted to be incorrect. The legislature went through this gymnastics to help reduce the chance of a court throwing the whole thing out on Equal Protection (or whatever the Canadians call it) grounds.
I think the legislative solution of granting carte blanche immunity may be an issue for appeal of the law. We shall see.
Not knowing a person's proper boundaries is not unique to Canada. In the Long Island Backpage sting, the beloved prosecutor Kathleen held a press conference a few minutes after the arrests. What happened to the prosecutor independently evaluating an arrest and deciding whether to prosecute? Did you do that in the minutes after the arrests, Kathleen? And was it appropriate to be both the police and the prosecutor while running for Congress?
Arrest records in all states in the US are public knowledge unless they are expunged or the record is sealed by a court, depending on the state and the crime.
Every guy who had his picture in the paper answered the decoy backpage ad. The arrest has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of any person. As they say the arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but they don't shield themselves from the publicity of being arrested.
I don't quite understand this reference to "prosecutorial discretion". The PCEPA didn't "legislate" prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion refers to a prosecutor's ability to not press charges, to drop charges, or to bargain with an accused for x, y or z reason (such as providing dirt on a bigger fish) in exchange for reduced charges. If there is no law to charge sex-workers on because selling sexual services is no longer considered an offense (unless it occurs where minors could reasonably be expected to be), then the prosecutor is not exercising discretion when he or she doesn't lay charges - there simply are no charges to lay. In any event, even if a prosecutor could exercise imaginary discretion in sex-worker cases, he or she would be faced with this glaring problem: police forces still represent the necessary cause in this whole process, and if there is no law to enforce, the chances are limited that there will be any sex-worker cases to evaluate (sex workers selling sex in park and school yards excluded).
A lot of posters who have read the law very closely have noted that selling sex is illegal now in Canada. That is consistent with Mr. Mackay's statement that prostitution is now illegal in Canada.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6767128&File=4
Try as hard as you can, the law does not say that. The law does not state that it's legal, but it does not say it's illegal, whatever way you look at it. Just like the previous law did not say t was legal to buy or sell sex. SC judges clearly stated that since prostitution was legal, sex workers rights were protected by the constitution. I see no way they would not apply the same logic here: if it's legal to sell, these rights are protected. The real issue is elsewhere: does the new law have the same or new detrimental impact on sex workers right? It's a new case that will go take years to happen because evidence will need to be collected. We're talking more then ten years if it goes that path. The only shorter way to get through this would be for a new federal government, either liberal or neo democrat, to submit the law directly to the SC.That path, however is not a guarantied success.
They apply it according to their reality, .
Exactly !:thumb:
Like I said, getting an arrest can be easy, but then the the law gets challenged and very likely destroyed. The best way to keep the law effective is not to lay charges. The threat of possible charges is enough to achieve the goal of the government, without actually risking a challenge of the law.
Not by strategy
Cheers
Booker
Not sure "implicitly illegal" is language tribunals accept especially when it falls under the criminal code. My understanding is that Young was put in a very difficult situation. He will definitely go after the communication part if he is given the opportunity, especially with NOW. He said that would be a piece of cake. Very clearly, NOW is breaking the law at the moment. But will the Ontario prosecutor go after them?
Also, in regards with the other aspects of the law, we must not forget that there are two words to summarize the Bedford decision: Grandma House (Vancouver). It's the piece Young hammered at the SC hearing. PCEPA solves that: 210 was abrogated. Bedford was mostly about indoor being safer then outdoor. Himel came to the obvious conclusion that it was, especially when we are talking about serious stuff like murders. That's not a card in his game anymore, nor is communication in the public space.
The next challenge will have to bring the clients' criminalization because it is largely the client's fear factor that will counterbalance the abrogation of 210 that is, in the books at least, an improvement comparing with the old law. I guess it will not be an easy task to argue before a court with an abstract concept like "clients' fear" as something depriving sex workers of their rights to security
The new law will not bring any significant changes. We are in the middle of an aftermath turmoil. The RCMP got some new funds. They will choreograph a show once in while, like the one we just saw in the Asian community.The usual spring operations on the streets will go on in some cities across the country.It should be back to normal in a year or two.
Also, in regards with the other aspects of the law, we must not forget that there are two words to summarize the Bedford decision: Grandma House (Vancouver). It's the piece Young hammered at the SC hearing. PCEPA solves that: 210 was abrogated. Bedford was mostly about indoor being safer then outdoor. Himel came to the obvious conclusion that it was, especially when we are talking about serious stuff like murders. That's not a card in his game anymore, nor is communication in the public space.
The next challenge will have to bring the clients' criminalization because it is largely the client's fear factor that will counterbalance the abrogation of 210 that is, in the books at least, an improvement comparing with the old law. I guess it will not be an easy task to argue before a court with an abstract concept like "clients' fear" as something depriving sex workers of their rights to security
The new law will not bring any significant changes. We are in the middle of an aftermath turmoil. The RCMP got some new funds. They will choreograph a show once in while, like the one we just saw in the Asian community.The usual spring operations on the streets will go on in some cities across the country.It should be back to normal in a year or two.
The new law will not bring any significant changes. We are in the middle of an aftermath turmoil. The RCMP got some new funds. They will choreograph a show once in while, like the one we just saw in the Asian community.The usual spring operations on the streets will go on in some cities across the country.It should be back to normal in a year or two.
Well, the response of LE will depend on the public and the complaints generated by the citizens of any one area. There are citizens who don't want to be around prostitution, even if the majority do not care. The police will respond to the loudest.
It won't be non stop operations like you say, but if they get complaints from time to time they will stage their operations. That's how it is in the US, where prostitution laws in all states have been on the books for roughly 100 years.
C-36 legislatively makes the decision that the seller of sex will not be prosecuted because that party is a victim.
The closest thing to that law is statutory rape for sex between an adult and a minor. The minor is also doing something illegal, but is considered a victim even if consenting because they are not competent to give consent. With C-36 the preamble says that the seller never has a real consent so they are not responsible. However they are NOT victims in the legal sense. Nowhere in the law does it say that they are victims. They are simply not responsible for the act.
It is also completely incoherent with other parts of the law that recognize that they do have autonomous choice. I think they used that confusing twist for the following reasons:
First they argue that it's not a lawful job so they would not have right to safety as with the old laws.
Secondly: they are not victims of this crime so their safety is not a priority relative to the bigger goal of eradicating prostitution.
I see your point, Patron. I still take issue with the idea of this amounting to "legislating prosecutorial discretion", but my disagreement is mostly on semantic grounds.
My understanding was that 20M$ was put on the table for a 5-year period to fund support and exit programs (or increase Christian-organization budgets). I did not see anything about new funding for law enforcement. In fact, I'm finding the 2014-2015 RCMP budget is actually down from the 2013-2014 budget (by 134M$). Were these new funds specifically allocated for prostitution-related law enforcement? A source would be appreciated.
The RCMP got some new funds. They will choreograph a show once in while, like the one we just saw in the Asian community.The usual spring operations on the streets will go on in some cities across the country.It should be back to normal in a year or two.
My understanding was that 20M$ was put on the table for a 5-year period to fund support and exit programs (or increase Christian-organization budgets). I did not see anything about new funding for law enforcement. In fact, I'm finding the 2014-2015 RCMP budget is actually down from the 2013-2014 budget (by 134M$). Were these new funds specifically allocated for prostitution-related law enforcement? A source would be appreciated.
Thank you Reverdy.
As I can see, the funds set aside for LE are intended for outreach and support programs. Access to these funds also requires submitting a proposal, so the funds are not just directly dropped into LE bank accounts. So the RCMP did not in fact get new funds to "choreograph a show once in a while".
As I can see, the funds set aside for LE are intended for outreach and support programs. Access to these funds also requires submitting a proposal, so the funds are not just directly dropped into LE bank accounts. So the RCMP did not in fact get new funds to "choreograph a show once in a while".
Government of Canada provides funding to raise awareness of services for victims of sexual exploitation
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=953319&tp=1
So, the CLES in Montreal got almost 200 000 $. It's pretty lucrative to be abolitionists.
Although if they get extra money for outreach it leaves more of their other money for enforcement. However, it's still a very small amount for the whole of Canada (a fraction of half of 20M$ on 5 years, that's next to nothing on their 4 billon annual budget). I don't exactly expect a sharp rise in enforcement.So the RCMP did not in fact get new funds to "choreograph a show once in a while".
OJ, I was talking about the LE trafficking funds, not the exit program funds. The exit funds are a thank you gesture for the political support. They do next to nothing to move people out of the prostitution. First because there is no demand for those programs. Last time I heard about la CLES, they pretended they have helped 100 persons over 6 years even though they had huge financial grants by Status of women (around 1,2 millions over 5 years). Their new funding with the victims act is 6 times smaller for the same amount of time. Sex workers decide for themselves to stop and when they need help to do so, the last place they're looking at is la CLES. It's a victim factory recruiting in a fringe of the population. If you don't feel victimised when going there, you sure will when going out. Sex workers know that, they are not idiots. Support through ideology programs would not resist any serious professional evaluation IMHO.
This is how I would break down the 100,000 or so escorts in Canada :
85% They like the lifestyle, money and in some cases sex.
10% These are total frauds and are only there to con JOHNs with the cooperation of their pimps.
4.9% They have looked for decent jobs and asked for help from the govt, but have been ignored/not helped.
0.1% Possible victims of human trafficking etc.
THAT totals 100%.
Just my 2 cents....
85% They like the lifestyle, money and in some cases sex.
10% These are total frauds and are only there to con JOHNs with the cooperation of their pimps.
4.9% They have looked for decent jobs and asked for help from the govt, but have been ignored/not helped.
0.1% Possible victims of human trafficking etc.
THAT totals 100%.
Just my 2 cents....
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 905
