With C-36 looming, can we put SPs and/or MPs out of business if we are not discrete?
- Thread starter Mike Nelson
- Start date
Under current prostitution laws incalls and escort agencies are already prohibited (keeping a common bawdy house; profiting from prostitution proceeds). Yet incalls/agencies are doing fine and business as usual with minimal LE interference in most aspects (except for cases when minors are involved or sex trafficking rings).
I am not naive but I suspect post C-36 the sex industry will still be pretty much business as usual. Only difference is now customers are now also on the other side of the law. If it's a serious priority for cities to eradicate the sex industry LE could have gone after a lot of agencies and worked with hotels to bust up incalls a long time ago.
I am not naive but I suspect post C-36 the sex industry will still be pretty much business as usual. Only difference is now customers are now also on the other side of the law. If it's a serious priority for cities to eradicate the sex industry LE could have gone after a lot of agencies and worked with hotels to bust up incalls a long time ago.
You are correct about the current law and agencies.
However, under the current laws, there are not separate provisions saying that the agencies cannot advertise and the companies receiving the ads cannot sell the advertisements. The new law has these prohibitions.
Also, did you see the sentences that this new law can impose on buyers of sex services? Up to 5 years. That does not mean judges will give out the maximum, but some Judge with a hard on against johns may. Allowing for 5 years for buying prostitution services is like allowing for 1 year for jaywalking. It is just obscene.
In the states, buying sex services in most or all states is a misdemeanor unless the SP is under 18, then it is a felony. When it is a misdemeanor, the maximum time is a year, and very rarely is the maximum given unless the perpetrator is a serial repeater or more likely had more serious charges, like assault against LE and resisting arrest, etc. and the Judge wanted to give the maximum of maximum time to make a point.
However, under the current laws, there are not separate provisions saying that the agencies cannot advertise and the companies receiving the ads cannot sell the advertisements. The new law has these prohibitions.
Also, did you see the sentences that this new law can impose on buyers of sex services? Up to 5 years. That does not mean judges will give out the maximum, but some Judge with a hard on against johns may. Allowing for 5 years for buying prostitution services is like allowing for 1 year for jaywalking. It is just obscene.
In the states, buying sex services in most or all states is a misdemeanor unless the SP is under 18, then it is a felony. When it is a misdemeanor, the maximum time is a year, and very rarely is the maximum given unless the perpetrator is a serial repeater or more likely had more serious charges, like assault against LE and resisting arrest, etc. and the Judge wanted to give the maximum of maximum time to make a point.
When they made the law in Sweden they were addressing concerns about visible street prostitutes and foreign workers. Enforcement has been targeted on the street and on ethnic workers. Escorts and Indoor have not been really bothered if they were Swedish. In Canada the government did not want to make a new law. They are just forced by the Bedford decision. I honestly believe it's not meant to be used any more than the old ones. It will maintain the satus quo and make the moralists feel like they won.
Interrestingly, in Sweden they put all the money in enforcement and no new money on social services. In Canada now it is the opposite. I think that's a good sign. If Harper had promised an extra 20M$ for police force then I would be more worried.
Tell me .. if indy's will be okay? or they will bust everyone even if they are recognized as indies... as for us ''incall'' with strict rules.. will might have to close our door.. even if there is no minor or drogues.. but still there is always a way. when you close a door.. you still have the window... what you think will happen cause for sure C-36 will be adopted. All i can stay is enjoy the hobby while you still have time
The new law will not affect independent providers unless you operate near a school or daycare center.
However, they could be after your customer whether you are doing an outcall or incall.
Their goal is to put you out of business (that's the theory).
So when you don't have any clients anymore or when you decide you don't want to put us poor guys at risk, they will have some money for you for retraining. So go to the retraining center and ask for your retraining ($20 million of retraining, etc. is in the bill). Let us know what you choose.
With the present law, incalls are illegal. The only reason you are not prosecuted is because police and prosecutors think they provide a more secure working environment. Will this change with the new law? We don't know, but I think it will not in Montreal. If LE starts busting incalls they know they will put sex workers at more risk.
Of course the new law changes everything, including incalls, outcalls, etc.
That's what the Supreme Court decision was all about. The old law was ruled unconstitutional. It no longer applies. Only the new law applies until when the Supreme Court of Canada evaluates it. The new law doesn't address incalls (bawdy houses) and outcalls.
The new law targets buyers, agencies (like the old law), but it makes selling legal for individuals selling their own services regardless of where they are except in plain view of a school or where children are. (I guess that means streetwalkers?).
So theoretically, regardless of where you are, in your house, apartment, hotel room, the SP's house, apartment, or hotel room, LE could bust your door down, come and get you the john and apologize to the SP, while hauling you off the jail for the night.
Hi all
I guess everyone aware of speed traps .Policemen placing themselves in low speeds zones badly indicated .
What prevents constables of making Johns trap ,they only need to wait and see .
All policeman have power of arrest they do not need to be investigators .If a policeman suspects you have committed a crime ,he can arrest you !
Making a arrest and making the charge stick are two different things.
Speculating without more infos is difficult
Good Luck
Cheers
Booker
I guess everyone aware of speed traps .Policemen placing themselves in low speeds zones badly indicated .
What prevents constables of making Johns trap ,they only need to wait and see .
All policeman have power of arrest they do not need to be investigators .If a policeman suspects you have committed a crime ,he can arrest you !
Making a arrest and making the charge stick are two different things.
Speculating without more infos is difficult
Good Luck
Cheers
Booker
Looks to me that the new law, sadly, is a done deal in Canada. Help us non Canadians understand the following:
1. When, how, and by whom will the new law get challenged and thrown to the Supreme Court? And if it does, will the new law put on hold while being studied by the court or will it remain in effect?
2. If Trudeau Jr. and the liberals sweep into office in the next elections, will they reverse the course (judging by liberals of America, I really doubt it)?
3. Quebec is a much open minded society than the rest of the country. Are their politicians cut form the same cloth as the people?
3. If no more fun can be had in Canada, where do go?
1. When, how, and by whom will the new law get challenged and thrown to the Supreme Court? And if it does, will the new law put on hold while being studied by the court or will it remain in effect?
2. If Trudeau Jr. and the liberals sweep into office in the next elections, will they reverse the course (judging by liberals of America, I really doubt it)?
3. Quebec is a much open minded society than the rest of the country. Are their politicians cut form the same cloth as the people?
3. If no more fun can be had in Canada, where do go?
Read my post in context, why don't you? It was a response to gugu who thinks the old law will be in place after the new law goes into affect (if it does in its present form). My point was if you are in the privacy of your own hotel room with an SP, the current law exempted your from any wrong doing and the new law does not. Gugu's last sentence was: "If LE starts busting incalls they know they will put sex workers at more risk." The new law would only arrest the sex buyer in incalls or outcalls.
As far as probable cause, the police don't need much. You can have a neighbor who complains you are bringing in young girls, and says "They look awfully young". The police can say, well call us the next time you see Mr. Patron invite some young lady into his house. Police work off of complaints. No one complains, LE usually doesn't bother you. I imagine there will be some conservative, starchy people who don't like their neighbors complaining.
Several years ago when I was in Montreal, the woman in the hotel room across from me saw me let in a SP into my room. She gave me a very distasteful look. I doubt she complained to the front desk, and even if she did they wouldn't have done or said anything. But now if hotels get too many complaints, I bet you they will start discouraging guests from inviting other SP's. Everything is based on complaints.
There are specific towns in the US that I know of where there are groups of hotels because of the location, and LE is very aggressive against prostitution, with both the johns and the prostitutes. These towns are located near a couple of major highways, and there are several businesses nearby. From wherever the complaints come from, LE keeps the pressure on escorts and johns who visit. Who is to say there will not be some areas or hotels which complain heavily and get LE involved.
Lastly, this law imposes a maximum of 5 years in prison and a $7500 fine. Yes, in the US, johns usually get just a fine for their first offense and some time but not significant time if they have past convictions. The maximum penalty for customers for first offenses is 1 year and you are correct no one is given 1 year. Most aren't given any time, unless they have past convictions, and the time is usually not long. Subsequent offenses, the max is 2 years in Michigan, and 18 months in NJ. But that being said, you can't be so sure that a Judge who is against the buying of sex won't give a significant sentence because he or she can.
I totally don't get this statement.
The risk to agencies with the new law over the past law is that they cannot advertise, and advertising venues can not take their ads. It is an added caveat so to say, which restricts their ability to do business. Yes, there is parts of the current law which makes agencies not legal, but LE doesn't get involved unless there is an under-aged escort involved, or trafficking.
Independents will be able to advertise, but they will may have a difficult time finding traditional media to take their ads. I don't know how backpage, Announce123, and other sites will react to the law. But I suppose independent SP's will find a way.
You've been smoking some bad shit. Get the organic stuff from your local producer next time.
It's obvious I was not talking about the risk of being arrested, but the risk of working in less secure environment.
It's clear we have had a small group of people making such complains to LE in the the last couple of years. But they are not taken seriously anymore by LE because they engender costly inquiries that get nowhere.
DD, Canada is not a banana republic. Our justice system works as good as your country's.
This is the same in Brazil. Prostitution is illegal there too. One difference is Brazil and Thailand are cultures of corruption. In the case of prostitution the corruption is a good thing. Within the last 2-years a few of the termas (a unique word for brothels used only in Rio) have been busted by police and put out of business. When I told my friend who is a Paulista who lived in Rio for 5-years he said "but they pay the police off...." Well they must have not paid enough in the case of L'umo because this is no longer an option.
My concern is that Canada is not a culture of corruption. I always fear that some up and coming politico will try to make a name for themselves and bust all the agencies. They may claim that there are under aged or coerced girls working there. They may use their favorite catch all that they are "trafficked" girls working there and start busting agencies. In Thailand or Brazil the solution is simple: You just pay someone off
Agreed. The quality, selection, the availability is so much better in Montreal compared to the USA. You can pay 600$ for some veteran in Vegas or LA or $200 and have three girls in the 18-26 year old range in Montreal. This is my concern. Maybe the business model can change and the girls will become like Our Affair as someone else suggested? Otherwise, TJ will be my go to hobby destination in North America. I will have to figure out how to make an annual trips to Brazil and Germany again. Why should I spend my money in Canada if they create this stupidity.
Hi all
As for myself I am much interested in the weaknesses of the new law then its strength ?
C-36 is definitely not business oriented it is put in place to shut it down .
Good Luck
Cheers
Booker
As for myself I am much interested in the weaknesses of the new law then its strength ?
C-36 is definitely not business oriented it is put in place to shut it down .
Good Luck
Cheers
Booker
Hi Laila
Yes definitely ,
Laws always have flaws ,it is just to find it !
A saying that my lawyers are familiar with" lets put our thinking hat on and come up with a solution" .
You build a bridge when their is a river :thumb:
Good Luck
Regards
Booker
No. I am not smoking anything, and no it was not obvious you were talking about working in a less secure environment. Reread what you said. But now since you tell me you were talking about safety instead of busts, why would incalls be less secure than right now?
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.
It all matters how important the local LE heads think the complaints are, or how loud the complainers complain. Will there be a seismic shift in attitudes against prostitution? I doubt it, but there are probably those in LE and on the prosecution side of the law who are proponents of this new approach. I personally think it would be wise to wait and judge the landscape for a while before jumping in.
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. It's all a scare tactic. But like everything, there are judges who are lenient and some who are extremely tough. And I guarantee you there will be a few Judges who will be sympathetic to the government and are not so lenient. Hopefully, this won't be the case, but you would be foolish to say it will not happen. In the US, there are Judges all over the board, just like Canada.
Hi all
The governments are selecting Judges from both sides the Crown attorneys ,who have a tendency to believe the Police and are less lenient !
And the Defense lawyers that usually disbelieve anything the Police say
and sometimes the odd one's that where practicing civil law ,it has a tendency to be awkward
Cheers
Booker
The governments are selecting Judges from both sides the Crown attorneys ,who have a tendency to believe the Police and are less lenient !
And the Defense lawyers that usually disbelieve anything the Police say
and sometimes the odd one's that where practicing civil law ,it has a tendency to be awkward
Cheers
Booker
We are not a culture of corruption, but on the other hand we are a very liberal culture when it comes to sex. We are not a police state either; police have the ability to use discretion. Plus police budgets are getting even tighter. Plus the new law is extremely contentious and stands on very shaky ground. I really don't see some chief or mayor going whole hog with this law just to make a name. It's a recipe for some serious debacle in court.
Similar threads
