My strategy is, me and Willy will stick to massotherapie indies and see who gets nabbed before we get too adventurous.
What is your strategey now the new law is out?
- Thread starter Rod Blagojevich
- Start date
It is premature to change one's behaviour. A law has been proposed, but not yet adopted. It may pass with amendments. It may take a long time to pass if the Senate opposes it. It may quickly be challenged in which case the police may not bother attempting to enforce it until the challenge is decided.
Finally, it is possible that the mayor of Montreal or premier of Quebec will oppose it and not bother enforcing it.
In the worst case, it will come into effect several months from now, so we should hire lots of SPs until then. Carpe diem.
Finally, it is possible that the mayor of Montreal or premier of Quebec will oppose it and not bother enforcing it.
In the worst case, it will come into effect several months from now, so we should hire lots of SPs until then. Carpe diem.
Like anon_vlad said, no need to change you habits now.
However, it might be a good idea to try and meet different new indies while advertising is still legal. With a good list of friends, it won't matter that much if advertising becomes more restricted.
However, it might be a good idea to try and meet different new indies while advertising is still legal. With a good list of friends, it won't matter that much if advertising becomes more restricted.
The new c=36 bill does cover lots of ground not many loopholes in actual version ,even Sugar Daddy's and Mommies ,Secretary sleeping with her boss any sexual act for monetary gain?
Indies have a avantage at the moment the bill says I quote"286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for
(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the
benefit is derived from the provision of their
own sexual services; or
(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation
to the advertisement of their own sexual
services.
Immunity —
aiding, abetting,
etc.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding,
abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an
offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or
being an accessory after the fact or counselling
a person to be a party to such an offence, if the
offence relates to the offering or provision of
their own sexual services.
Will the house of commons and Senate adopted in current wording ,how will the application of the law be made by the Police and Courts ,How will the Provincial Government react since they are responsible for the application of the Criminal code?
Indies seems safest bet for moment
Indies have a avantage at the moment the bill says I quote"286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for
(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the
benefit is derived from the provision of their
own sexual services; or
(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation
to the advertisement of their own sexual
services.
Immunity —
aiding, abetting,
etc.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding,
abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an
offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or
being an accessory after the fact or counselling
a person to be a party to such an offence, if the
offence relates to the offering or provision of
their own sexual services.
Will the house of commons and Senate adopted in current wording ,how will the application of the law be made by the Police and Courts ,How will the Provincial Government react since they are responsible for the application of the Criminal code?
Indies seems safest bet for moment
I doubt the Mayor of Montreal oppose it. He wanted to shut down all the massage parlors (that offer extras) in Montreal. Now with this new law he can.
No he can't. The police still needs to prove that sex is being sold in the MP before they can close the place. Sex in MP was already illegal and it does not change anything.
In fact, the way I interpret the new law, the owner of a MP would not be committing a crime if he was not suggesting and encouraging the masseuses to have sex with clients. The only guilty party would be the clients. This law might make it more difficult to close down places if my understanding is right.
In fact, the way I interpret the new law, the owner of a MP would not be committing a crime if he was not suggesting and encouraging the masseuses to have sex with clients. The only guilty party would be the clients. This law might make it more difficult to close down places if my understanding is right.
Clients at a massage parlor asking for sex will be more at risk because it's easier to raid a parlor than a private apartment.
The main impact on the indies will be advertising.
Hello Social Medias. I don't think, for example, sending a twit will be considered as advertising.
The main impact on the indies will be advertising.
Hello Social Medias. I don't think, for example, sending a twit will be considered as advertising.
Hi all
Its always about proof and credibility of witness's in any court cases they are not rewriting all the Canadian laws and Criminal/Penal codes
Presumption of innocence will still apply
A quote "
9.1 Presumption of Innocence
(Last revised February 2004)
[1] Every person charged with an offence (or, NOA) is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Crown has proved his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] The indictment tells you and NOA what offence the Crown alleges against NOA. The charge is not evidence. It is not proof of guilt.
[3] The presumption of innocence lasts throughout the trial. This presumption only ceases to apply if, at the end of the case and on the whole of the evidence, the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that NOA is guilty of the crime charged.
9.2 Burden of Proof[1]
(Last revised February 2004)
[1] The person charged (or, NOA) does not have to present evidence or prove anything in this case, in particular, that s/he is innocent of the offence charged.
[2] From start to finish, it is the Crown who must prove the guilt of NOA beyond a reasonable doubt. You must find NOA not guilty of the (an)[2] offence unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she is guilty of it.
9.3 Reasonable Doubt[3]
(R. v. Lifchus)
(Last revised February 2004)
[1] The principle of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is an essential part of the presumption of innocence.
[2] A reasonable doubt is not a far-fetched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that arises at the end of the case based not only on what the evidence tells you but also on what that evidence does not tell you.
[3] It is not enough for you to believe that NOA is probably or likely guilty. In those circumstances, you must find him/her not guilty, because the Crown would have failed to prove his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[4] You should also remember, however, that it is nearly impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. The Crown is not required to do so. Absolute certainty is a standard of proof that does not exist in law.
[5] If, at the end of the case, and after an assessment of all of the evidence, you are not sure that NOA committed the (an) offence, you must find him/her not guilty.
[6] If, at the end of the case, based on all of the evidence, you are sure that NOA committed the (an)[4] offence, you should find NOA guilty.
9.4 Assessment of Evidence
(Last revised February 2004)
[1] To make your decision, you should consider carefully, and with an open mind, all the evidence presented during the trial. It will be up to you to decide how much or little of the testimony of any witness you will believe or rely on. You may believe some, none or all of the evidence given by a witness.
[2] When you go to the jury room to consider the case, use your collective common sense to decide whether the witnesses know what they are talking about and whether they are telling the truth. There is no magic formula for deciding how much or how little to believe of a witness’s testimony or how much to rely on it in deciding this case. But here are a few questions you might keep in mind during your discussions.
[3] Did the witness seem honest? Is there any reason why the witness would not be telling the truth?
[4] Did the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case, or any reason to give evidence that is more favourable to one side than to the other?
[5] Was the witness in a position to make accurate and complete observations about the event? Did s/he have a good opportunity to do so? What were the circumstances in which the observation was made? What was the condition of the witness? Was the event itself unusual or routine?
[6] Did the witness seem to have a good memory? Does the witness have any reason to remember the things about which s/he testified? Did any inability or difficulty that the witness had in remembering events seem genuine, or did it seem made up as an excuse to avoid answering questions?
[7] [5] Did the witness seem to be reporting to you what he or she saw or heard, or simply putting together an account based on information obtained from other sources, rather than personal observation?
[8] Did the witness’s testimony seem reasonable and consistent? Is it similar to or different from what other witnesses said about the same events? Did the witness say or do something different on an earlier occasion?
[9] Do any inconsistencies in the witness’s evidence make the main points of the testimony more or less believable and reliable? Is the inconsistency about something important, or a minor detail? Does it seem like an honest mistake? Is it a deliberate lie? Is the inconsistency because the witness said something different, or because s/he failed to mention something? Is there any explanation for it? Does the explanation make sense?
[10] What was the witness’s manner when he or she testified? Do not jump to conclusions, however, based entirely on how a witness has testified. Looks can be deceiving. Giving evidence in a trial is not a common experience for many witnesses. People react and appear differently. Witnesses come from different backgrounds. They have different abilities, values and life experiences. There are simply too many variables to make the manner in which a witness testifies the only or most important factor in your decision. [6]
[11] These are only some of the factors that you might keep in mind when you go to your jury room to make your decision. These factors might help you decide how much or little of a witness’s evidence you will believe or rely on. You may consider other factors as well.
[12] In making your decision, do not consider only the testimony of the witnesses. Take into account, as well, any exhibits that have been filed and decide how much or little you will rely on them to help you decide this case. I will be telling (or, have already told) you about how you use admissions in making your decision.
9.5 Numbers of Witnesses
(Last revised February 2004)
[1] How much or little of the evidence of the witnesses you will believe or rely on does not depend on the number of witnesses who testify for one side or the other.
[2] Your duty is to consider all of the evidence. You may decide that the testimony of fewer witnesses is more reliable than the evidence of a larger number. It is up to you to decide.
[3] Your task is to consider carefully the testimony of each witness. Decide how much or little you believe of what each witness has said. Do not decide the case simply by counting witnesses.
9.6 Testimony of Person Charged (The W. (D.) Instruction)[7]
(Last revised March 2007)
[1] If you believe the testimony of NOA that s/he did not commit the offence charged, you must find him/her not guilty.
[2] Even if you do not believe the testimony of NOA, if it leaves you with a reasonable doubt about his/her guilt (or, about an essential element of the offence charged (or, an offence)), you must find him/her not guilty (of that offence).
[3] If you don't know whom to believe, it means you have a reasonable doubt and you must find NOA not guilty.[8]
[4] Even if the testimony of NOA does not raise a reasonable doubt about his/her guilt, (or, about an essential element of the offence charged (or, an offence)), if after considering all the evidence you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, you must acquit.
[1] This instruction will require modification where the burden of proof is reversed, as for example, where the accused denies criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder.
[2] The word “an” should be used in paragraph [2] where included offences will be left to the jury.
[3] This instruction will require modification where the burden of proof is reversed as, for example, where the accused denies criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder. The substantive offence instructions make it clear that proof beyond a reasonable doubt relates only to the essential elements of the crime charged or being considered. Some judges may wish to emphasize this in the instructions about reasonable doubt. The following may be added, for example, in [2]:
“It is a doubt about an essential element of the (an) offence (charged).”
or, in [4]:
“What the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt are the essential elements of the (an) offence, as I shall define them for you.”
[4] The word “an” should be used in paragraph [6] where included offences will be left to the jury.
[5] Paragraph [7] is directed at witnesses who may have put their testimony together, or embellished their account from outside sources, such as media accounts or other sources. It may require modification where the source is records whose accuracy, and the propriety of consulting them, is not in issue.
[6] Where a witness is testifying through an interpreter, this instruction may be expanded to point out the particular difficulties in assessing such a witness’s testimony.
[7] R. v. W. (D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. This instruction is appropriate where the evidence of the accused, or a statement introduced by Crown counsel, constitutes a complete defence to the offence charged.
[8] This instruction is appropriate in “he said/she said” cases.
From the Canadian Judicial Counsel
Final wording of the text of the law required
And a few questions to my criminal lawyers
Regards
BookerL
Until there is a new law in place and until there is a pattern of LE enforcement or non-enforcement of the provisions it is premature to be discussing strategy.
By the way, the prostitute is not a victim according to the wording of the law. She is just immune to the prosecution. If she was a victim she would get the same treatment as any crime victim. The victim of the ''crime'' is not the woman, but womanhood in general.
Anyway, the escort will never be completely immune to prosecution, unless you are doing it on a deserted island, miles away from anywhere where it is reasonable to expect that a child could possibly be. Hotels or private apartments, if someone says there could be a child in the building somewhere, the escort could be arrested.
For advertising, escorts could just leave fliers anywhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tart_card
I guess i am part of the least touched group... Hotel Outcall... and i don't go to chablis or those "hooker places" as some call them. So i guess the chances of getting spot/arrested is more than unlikely... but i wish this crap don't past, i prefer to keep my conscience completey safe and think what i do is not illegal...
Hi all
And hi Siocnarf if your interpretation is correct and it stands in the adopted Bill and is enforceable law It will create a Pandora's box ,a willing percipient to a crime with total immunity from prosecution by law
incredible ramifications ,but I believe you do understand them !
Lets hope the elected opposition do there job and counter the first wording ??????
Regards all
BookerL
L
Lily from Montreal
Well maybe the wording of the law says we are not victims but the minister do use the word victim,that ALL of us are victims wanting to be ''saved''...grrr... and ALL you guys are perverts...sigh
What's depressing, but predictable, is that the Conservative government is not trying to solve a problem, and make things better. They are playing to their social conservative base. The moral high road, church, and family values crowd. Mackay can't call the women whores any longer so he calls the clients "perverts". If the bill is challenged successfully in the courts, the Conservatives will blame the left leaning judges and keep the support of their right wing allies.
sinbad
sinbad
Hi, my name is Sol Tee Nutz and I am a pervert, Bahahahahahaha. Nothing will change for me with the escort meetings. I do not think the laws will pass but that is just my opinion. Continue with your daily lives 
Hi, my name is Sol Tee Nutz and I am a pervert, Bahahahahahaha. Nothing will change for me with the escort meetings. I do not think the laws will pass but that is just my opinion. Continue with your daily lives
Same here bro, I have never been with and I will never see a prostitute, I only see escorts for their time and companionship which will continue to be legal, any sex that goes on between us is consensual.
Similar threads
