With C-36 looming, can we put SPs and/or MPs out of business if we are not discrete?

[Siocnarf]

It's against the law now, and the only thing would change would be exactly who will be breaking the law, which will be everyone except the provider. How does that make her unsafe? I don't understand your reasoning.
...
Sure, Canada is not a banana republic, but why did they put a maximum penalty of 5 years? Probably they are hoping some judges will sentence some poor guy who has a previous conviction to a long term, like 2 years or more for the publicity and scare others.

If police start raiding incalls, ladies will have to start working in more dangerous venues, like the streets. Even being indy is less safe than being at an agency incall or MP. The client gets the legal penalty, but the worker gets her life put in danger.

About the penalty, this is a hybrid offense that can be prosecuted either by summary conviction or by indictment. The time for summary conviction is much less. Indictment are usually very serious crime and I doubt a prosecutor could successfully go by indictment for a non-violent purchase by a first-time offender when it is not associated with other serious charges.

 

[daydreamer41]

If police start raiding incalls, ladies will have to start working in more dangerous venues, like the streets. Even being indy is less safe than being at an agency incall or MP. The client gets the legal penalty, but the worker gets her life put in danger.

The police can raid incalls with the current law, but with this new proposed law they exempt the SP and prosecute the owner and customers. So she would end up being an independent, if she wanted to provide sexual services. Or the agency model would change. The girl would be in an individual apartment and the agency would send the client to her? Who knows how it would work, but yes an independent has less security support. I agree with you with that. I don't think most girls we deal with would consider the streets. They would try the independent route before considering the streets. They would be very desperate to go to the streets.

About the penalty, this is a hybrid offense that can be prosecuted either by summary conviction or by indictment. The time for summary conviction is much less. Indictment are usually very serious crime and I doubt a prosecutor could successfully go by indictment for a non-violent purchase by a first-time offender when it is not associated with other serious charges.

Well, in the case of a summary conviction, the Judge can give you up to 18 months:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6717422&File=4&Col=1
Commodification of Sexual Activity

Obtaining sexual services for consideration
286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of,
(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or
(ii) in any other case,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,
(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or
(ii) in any other case,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000.

 

[Evangeline Grace]

We cannot give up!! This petition only started last night and already has over 126 supporters. The petition hit it's 100 Mark in less than 10 Hours!! I am only now making connections not only nationally, but in other parts of the globe. I have suggested how the passing of this bill also affects our economy and tourism, so support from other nations is also well accepted.

Even if this bill passes senate, this is only the beginning of creating a public out-roar, forcing a referendum, or whatever it takes... we didn't have enough time to educate Canadians on what was happening because of the government's backdoor tactics.. please sign.

THE PETITION IS OPEN UNTIL THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED NEXT ELECTION DUE BY MID OCTOBER 2015.

Please sign and share this petition... https://www.change.org/p/stephen-harper-do-not-endanger-the-lives-of-sex-workers

 

[Evangeline Grace]

I have just made some changes to Elizabeths' May's format when I copied and pasted her PDF online and it is much more legible now... I am working hard on my own to start this petition and to make the networking connections, so forgive some errors that may occur along the way... let's all participate together to make an impact!! Thanks so much everyone!!

 

[daydreamer41]

Sorry, Patron, but the story that you linked to would not apply to C-36. Women in a hotel room won't be breaking any law. The men who visit them will be.

And your example of the female guest, it doesn't apply under C-36. The law breakers will be, again, the buyers (us guys on merb) of sexual services.

For example, you may have a young pretty female guest for 2 hours the night you come in, they wouldn't notice. But let's say after the 3rd day you have had a dozen young women enter and leave your room, they may notice or another guest may notice. Now, they may be nice and not say anything. They may call you and say you can't have any more visitors. What are you going to do? Find another hotel?

All of this is of course theoretical. But in my couple dozen trips over 15 years to Montreal, I have had a few situations which I am sure the hotels did not like. It wasn't me. It was my guests. I had a couple girls who were loud and drunk. Once, a driver came up demanding money for a girl I refused. He was loud and obnoxious. He left after I threatened to call the police. I am sure the other guests did not enjoy the excitement, nor did the hotels, if they heard any complaints. But if C-36 is in effect, I would be acting illegally. I can't control what a SP does, etc. I would be at risk. C-36 adds risk to our activity. There is risk with inviting a SP in any event. With C-36, it gets much more risky. I think I am only looking at it practically. You may not think so. That's okay. We make our decisions for ourselves.

 

[daydreamer41]

If C-36 passes, I think that hotel managers will ask guests to refrain from having additional guests if they observe you having many young women go to your room, or another guest does and they complain. If you don't, they will ask you to leave and remind you of C-36. It is just a hunch.

I will tell you something that happened to me in a hotel in NYC 15 years ago. I was feeling kind of funky, so I called an ad in village voice. I never called this number before. However, it was late at night. The woman told me to go to a hotel. She had 2 girls there ready to give me a good time. When I got to the floor, a guy in plain clothes asked me for my id. I asked him who he was. He said he was hotel security. I really thought he was a plain clothes police officer. He read my driver's license, and told me to "Enjoy". He walked the other way. I knocked on the hotel room door. There were 2 girls there in the bed with their arms folded. They both looked very uncomfortable. There was an older lady in her late 30s or early 40s asking me how long I wanted to stay with them or one of them. I got really nervous before she even mentioned $. It looked like a sting. So I said that I was not feeling well, and left. She acted disappointed, but I walked fast out of the room. I did not see the guy who asked me for my driver's license before. So I don't know if it was a sting, or actually the hotel security. This was not by the way a crack hotel. It was a rather large, 3 star chain hotel.

My point with this story is Montreal and Canada for that matter has been fairly open to escort services, etc. You wouldn't run into something like what I ran into in Montreal. If and after C-36 passes, I think you will see hotels be somewhat more vigilant and responsive to complaints. The hotels know who is receiving girls, mostly single guys on a trip.

FYI, if police want to investigate situations, the hotels cannot say No. The hotels do not have that right.

 

[Siocnarf]

Sorry, Patron, but the story that you linked to would not apply to C-36. Women in a hotel room won't be breaking any law. The men who visit them will be.

And your example of the female guest, it doesn't apply under C-36. The law breakers will be, again, the buyers (us guys on merb) of sexual services.

Same difference. If a guy checks in with his wife or girlfriend and the staff thinks she looks like a hooker for whatever reason, they could ask the guy to leave and this would cause a scandal. It doesn't matter which one of the two who was supposedly breaking the law.

That's hypothetical, I doudt very mush the staff would do that, except maybe in very high profile hotels with people who look very suspicious.

 

[Siocnarf]

Siocnarf, since you are Canadian, it might help us to know what you mean by high profile. I presume it means low class.

Actually, I meant very high class. My understanding is that low class hotels are not safe, but very top ones are not SP-friendly. So long as people don't look out of place I suppose they won't snoop in their client's business, but they might if they have reasons to be suspicious. They have an image to maintain. I suppose the Ritz-Carlton doesn't rent rooms for 4h.

 

[BookerL]

Hi all
A personal true experience in a high end downtown Vancouver Hotel .
My ex real life girlfriend was prevented from entering the hotel because she was back alone at 3 a,m, .
We where guess their for already four months when it happened ,the security guard that did it was new .
I my ex looked like a pin up Glam Model .
There is nothing that prevents someone to be zealous .


Cheers



Booker

 

[daydreamer41]

Same difference. If a guy checks in with his wife or girlfriend and the staff thinks she looks like a hooker for whatever reason, they could ask the guy to leave and this would cause a scandal. It doesn't matter which one of the two who was supposedly breaking the law.

That's hypothetical, I doudt very mush the staff would do that, except maybe in very high profile hotels with people who look very suspicious.

Again, you did not read what I wrote. I said many girls, not one, going in and out of a guy's hotel room.

I doubt very much they will say anything if you had one slutty woman staying with you, who may be your wife, your girlfriend, your hooker, or you just got lucky at a bar.

But now with C-36, where it would be illegal for the guy, not the women going in and out of the place, many would raise suspicions.

 

[daydreamer41]

Siocnarf, since you are Canadian, it might help us to know what you mean by high profile. I presume it means low class.

We have a great irony in the U.S., in that the better the hotel the less likelihood of hassles from the police. I remember staying at either a Hilton or a Hyatt in downtown San Diego and my favorite escort there came right up to the room like always. No one bats an eye and there is just no concern. Later that night I took the city bus to go to sketchy XXX video store that was near a really good Mexican joint and a sleazy motel. As I was walking from the video store to the restaurant, I noticed that the motel had a sign detailing California's prostitution laws and informing guests that no such activities would be permitted by the motel. Actually a fucking sign that everyone could read walking by. Now there may be low-end prostitution galore at the motel and the owners put it up to show police they were trying to deter it, but it very well could have been a joint effort between the motel and the police to crack down on prostitution.

While I have never heard of the police entering any hotel or motel room to "look for sexual activity", DayDreamer41 is correct that the U.S. Cops have been known to hang out in the parking lots of low price motels particularly along the interstate. Their standard technique for johns is to follow cars with local license plates that were only parked in the lot for a few hours or so, look for bogus traffic violations to stop him, and try to get him to admit to purchasing sex. If he STFU, he is fine, but that is easier to say than to do.

The point I am making is that guys staying at nice hotels, either because they are traveling on business, using hotel loyalty points, or simply paying the higher hotel room prices, are essentially exempt from having difficulty with law enforcement, and thus is helped by the fact that nice hotels are uncooperative with the police and are able to exert influenced at high levels to keep them out of the picture. Life for the poorer (or cheaper) guy at the low-rate motel is a completely different story. I am fortunate in that I have a lot of hotel loyalty points at nice places or I am able to plan far enough ahead to use Priceline to get a good rate, even at nicer places in better neighborhoods.

It will be interesting how it will work in Canada. My perception is that Canadians try to hold on to the belief that Everyone is Equal and the Law is Blind, whereas children in the U.S. are taught that in the third grade and figure out it is bullshit by the sixth grade.

That is not true. Higher end establishments have to be cooperative with police in many states because just like lower end establishments LE has charged managers and ownership with complicity to prostitution and their properties can be confiscated. There are some court cases which may end up at the US Supreme Court for some lower end motel owners in CA that I have seen on the news. Police departments make lots of $ in confiscating property of people charge in crimes. So there is an incentive for some LE to be overzealous in their police work. If a detective says they are investigating prostitution at their hotel, the last thing a hotel manager says is No.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

We have a great irony in the U.S., in that the better the hotel the less likelihood of hassles from the police. I remember staying at either a Hilton or a Hyatt in downtown San Diego and my favorite escort there came right up to the room like always. No one bats an eye and there is just no concern.

I used to meet Montreal ladies from Montreal Girlfriends and French Kiss Society. One place I remember was the Westin hotel right in the downtown heart of the city. The first agency would often book clients back to back and FKS was more likely to have a 30 minutes break between clients. I walked in, used the hotel phones to say I was there and get the room number, maybe I had to wait a while in the large open lobby, then went up. No one gave a second thought or look about any of this even if I had to ask something at the desk. Surprise? There's no cordon of police, no room searches for older guys and younger ladies. Montreal hotels are not suddenly going to turn into police boobie traps. If you go to the good larger open hotels, behave and don't broadcast your intentions the risks will be the same...far FAR more about risk of satisfaction between clients and escorts than with the LE.

Later that night I took the city bus to go to sketchy XXX video store that was near a really good Mexican joint and a sleazy motel. As I was walking from the video store to the restaurant, I noticed that the motel had a sign detailing California's prostitution laws and informing guests that no such activities would be permitted by the motel. Actually a fucking sign that everyone could read walking by....the owners put it up to show police they were trying to deter it...

More likely it was show of cooperation to cover their legal backsides. Perhaps they had been busted before. If I was the owner I would not want a sign that basically points out this motel has been refuge for prostitutes or other possible illegal activities. It's pretty bad advertising.

The problem with these motels and smaller hotels is it's far easier to track who is a paying guest and who is not. Years ago I used to like the small Chateau l'Argoat on rue Sherbrooke near rue Berri for it's individually decorated rooms and hot tubs. I met Sarah of Betterhalf, Rebeka of FKS, Lilly Lombard, and more there. No one cared about very obvious "visitors". Under the new law I would not go near the place. Larger hotels have a lot of other business going on besides renting rooms, business that attracts more business. If you don't make a habit of showing up at the same place you will be anonymous like so many others. It's very difficult to know who is who unless the LE wants to spend a lot of their budget making a very public presence for intimidation effects that will hurt the hotels. Does anyone really see that happening.

...U.S. Cops have been known to hang out in the parking lots of low price motels particularly along the interstate.

So the Chablis and like places will take a hit. Sorry for those who like them. I don't think much will change at the bigger better hotels if everyone uses their head about not being ridiculously obvious like a short fat bald guy frequently walking in with another little hot doll. What could they have done about me being at the hotel and meeting Elena, Marika, or anyone else. Are they going to put camera monitors in every hallway of rooms in Montreal and track who belongs. If they were that crazy they'd still have to prove there was a money exchange for sexual services.

Is the LE going to infiltrate agencies with ladies from the recruitment on up? I'm not worried about hotels, I'd be more concerned that the agencies are doing their part about how to recruit and keep their operation safe from greater risk within the agency and from the LE. I'd be wary of certain former owners who were known to be too random about recruitment and/or playing sex games with their own stock, especially coercion tactics for assignments and other associates dipping into the cookie jar. Don't take unnecessary risks or create them.

It will be interesting how it will work in Canada. My perception is that Canadians try to hold on to the belief that Everyone is Equal and the Law is Blind, whereas children in the U.S. are taught that in the third grade and figure out it is bullshit by the sixth grade.

Every country has their sacred ideals that fall far short of the promise.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Siocnarf]

I doubt very much they will say anything if you had one slutty woman staying with you, who may be your wife, your girlfriend, your hooker, or you just got lucky at a bar.

Don't be so sure. In Sweden a group of asian women were evicted from a bar simply because the police had told the owner to watch for asian sex workers. When they sued the place, the court decided the owner was not breaching their liberties. (I'm trying to find the article I saw about that)

So it depends a lot on the social context. The law is directed against the client but the discrimination is always going to be directed at the workers or women who look like it. In theory hotel could very well discriminate against anyone who looks like an escort, but it is very unlikely in our social context.

Don't forget also that hotels will not be liable according to the law. They rent the rooms on the same term as they rent it to anyone else and do not encourage anyone to sell sex. They are not breaking the law even if they know what the room is used for. Same with landlords of apartments.

In Sweden, a landlord is legally obligated to evict a person if they learn that they are selling sex. Our new law is really not as straightforward as that and it's almost impossible to apply effectively.

 

[daydreamer41]

I am familiar with the confiscation of property cases you allude to, but I have never seen one that involved what I would consider a "high-end" property and the ones I have seen involved both drugs and prostitution. The approach of higher-end hotels in the U.S. Is to quietly evict or ban prostitutes from the hotel without involving the police, if the hotel wants to ban this activity. I would presume that will continue to be the approach in Canada after C-36. The hotel can continue to do so. Prostitution will be illegal in Canada post C-36, even though the prostitute is exempt from prostitution. The hotel does not have to cater to any party participating in an illegal act. If the approach is for the hotel to call the police and have them barge into a room to find commercial sexual activity and arrest the guy, someone at the hotel's international headquarters the next morning is going to say, "You did WHAT". It just ain't going to happen at higher-end hotels. There is no predicting what might occur with respect to this activity when it comes to law enforcement at $30 a night places.

I agree with you that the hotels will not invite LE to investigate. LE will do that on their on if and when they choose to investigate. But no hotel, high end or low end, will say no to LE.

 

[BookerL]

Swingers couples

Hi all

In Canada swingers club are legal http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2263/index.do,Judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada .
No criminal law punishes adultery and sex between consenting adults remains legal .

Only money for sex will be criminalize witch constitute a major difference .
I was submitted to many Police interrogations trying to find incoherence if their is none ,they have to assume that you are not committing a crime they can prove .
You are seeing a SP in hotel room for 1 hour they see you go in and out ,they decide to arrest you .
They ask you what you where doing ?I was seeing my friend !
Whats her name ,If you know her real name the hotel confirms her real name ,no law prevents couples to be swingers .
I always knew my girls real names ,if the arresting Police officer cannot disprove your story he must release you .
Everything is about proving and not knowing that is a very big difference .

Good Luck to all


Booker

 

[daydreamer41]

Hi all

They ask you what you where doing ?I was seeing my friend !
Whats her name ,If you know her real name the hotel confirms her real name ,no law prevents couples to be swingers .
I always knew my girls real names ,if the arresting Police officer cannot disprove your story he must release you .
Everything is about proving and not knowing that is a very big difference .

Good Luck to all


Booker

How many SP's are going to tell you their real names? Don't they want some form of anonymity?

 

[Merlot]

Gents,

...no law prevents couples to be swingers .

Booker

If people stay calm, and think, they will realize all you have to do is say we are swingers meeting for the first time after chatting on the internet. You may not know the names because you are being cautious about meeting a stranger for the first time to avoid unnecessary complications and see if things work out. That would be a very natural precaution to take for anyone meeting a stranger for the first time, we decided to use nicknames first, and I don't see what the police would be able to do against that. I have been using a fairly consistent normal male name right along anyway, almost never referring to Merlot. Of course a very obvious age mismatch is something else. But still, what can they really do if they can't prove any $ were exchanged? As for either party having a large amount of cash, I don't know what the laws about searching through private property is in Canada, but in the U.S. there has to be proper cause as far as I understand it. Does age difference provide that? I wouldn't think it's enough.

:noidea:

Merlot

 

[BookerL]

How many SP's are going to tell you their real names? Don't they want some form of anonymity?

Maybe none ,maybe some .
The fact of proving you are seeing someone one for sex in exchange of money is more likely if you do not no her real name .
This happen to me last year .
I see a Police traveling slowly and looking at us ,It was 3 a.m. I say to my girl they will come and see us .We started kissing as a couple would do ,The Police officer came, he checked my papers and did not ask any other questions even if he saw QCP database that I was a known escort agency owner .
I am providing real life situation in witch I was faced.
Each case is different ,but keeping your calm and being able to provide a immediate alternative possible scenario the Police cannot disprove is way to get out !
The reason for the posting is more to show that there iis still flaws in c-36 ,it is not a step by step way to elude .

Good Luck


Cheers



Booker

 

[Siocnarf]

But no hotel, high end or low end, will say no to LE.

Like I said above, the Hotel is not breaking the law even if they know what we are doing. This is what is truly unique in the world with the new Canadian law. Hotels will have no reason to violate their customer's right to privacy just to please the LE. If police tries to intimidate Hotel managers it could be one of any dozen of ways this will end up in a Constitutional challenge. Even if half the rooms are constantly occupied by hookers who bring dozens of clients a day, the Hotel is not breaking any law so long as it's just renting them the rooms on normal terms.

If asked about the girl's name I would tell the officer I'm not giving him personal info about somebody else. We are not in Saudi Arabia where you have to show marriage license to the police.

 

[daydreamer41]

Like I said above, the Hotel is not breaking the law even if they know what we are doing. This is what is truly unique in the world with the new Canadian law. Hotels will have no reason to violate their customer's right to privacy just to please the LE. If police tries to intimidate Hotel managers it could be one of any dozen of ways this will end up in a Constitutional challenge. Even if half the rooms are constantly occupied by hookers who bring dozens of clients a day, the Hotel is not breaking any law so long as it's just renting them the rooms on normal terms.

If asked about the girl's name I would tell the officer I'm not giving him personal info about somebody else. We are not in Saudi Arabia where you have to show marriage license to the police.

Really? Where does it say in C-36 that individuals and institutions can ignore law enforcement if they ask or tell the establishment that they are investigating or staking out the place? I think you are entering fantasyland, Siocnarf.