Bill C-36 tabled (New Prostitution Law)

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

I fully expect that once this bill is passed, and make no mistake, it will be passed quickly and in its current form, the reform government will motivate LE to start making examples.

I see TERB as one of the first victims frankly. Hate to say it, but it makes sense. It seems to me that a large portion of this bill is aimed right at Internet advertising and TERB definitely fits that description..

Shutting TERB down will "cut off the head" so to speak. Instead of a like minded group, there will be just silence. We will not be able to communicate.

I'm fully expecting that one day I will try to log on TERB and I will have my login request directed to one of those sites that gives you a set of links to buying vacation packages.

Maybe someone who is a lawyer can explain it but the way I read the bill and my interpretation of it is different. I read it as third party meaning a pimp advertising the services of the lady. Not the advertising venue as a third party. I read this as an issue for agencies advertising "escorts" and I see an issue for advertising menu style services. I don't see GFE as "sexual" service but BBBJ I do.

There is a lot of definition required in the terms used in the bill and so this is where a lawyer may be able to shed proper light.

Same with parts like a lady can hire a bodyguard or driver, or this should lead to she can hire someone like me as a photographer, or hire ad administrative staff of sorts???? IDK. To many arm chair opinions, doom and gloom posts, etc to weed through so that we can find out some true facts.

 

[AdamH]

I just don't get how you decide that an entire group of men (who are otherwise upstanding individuals) should be labelled as criminals.. Especially when there are likely dozens of members of the Con party who likely visit prostitutes regularly..

Sure there are assholes and sadists out there who really should be put away.. But there's also dudes who feel ugly, are socially anxious, just want to feel young, just want to feel appreciated in a way that they haven't in a long time, are stuck in shitty unloving relationships (but are held hostage by the threat of an ugly divorce)..

There's maybe a small handful of nasty reasons to want to see a prostitute.. But there's easily hundreds of perfectly understandable and acceptable reasons too..

 

[TeasePlease]

I feel that the industry has gone too far in its indiscretions: advertising openly in mainstream media (now, friggin toronto life, backpage etc.), opening up parlours in very public locations - insensitivity to what kids are able to access is a problem and I believe that the new laws might stop some of this insanity. As for the rest of the proposal, yeah it will hurt but I know that there will be some clever reinvention.

The industry has evolved a lot over the past ten years, but I'm not sure it has gone too far. There are individual elements that certainly put in "in your face" and behave as though sexwork is mainstream and normal...it ain't and I'm not sure it ever will be. Even in the most liberal societies it is simply accepted as a peripheral element. Tolerated and accepted but not part of the core ideals of society.

This will be the most repressive postitution law in the western world. For a country that prides itself on individual freedom
and letting people "do their own thing"....

I have no idea what country you live in, but Canada has long had a history of trumping individual rights for the social good. If you've spent any time in the US, you would know that. We are a nanny state. Look at healthcare, highway traffic laws, firearms act, etc

 

[elise]

I sky falling? nope.
Is our hobby going to change? Yep. Big time.

I see it playing out something like this.

The parliament will pass the bill, it will go to the senate and be given royal ascent making it law. Not sure how long all this will take, a month maybe? I don't see any opposition to it other than the typical opposition party "everything the government is doing is wrong" and then go on to ignore because there are better more popular things to score points on. Very few of us boast to someone else about the excellent time we just had with an SP (other than anonymously on TERB). We really are a silent minority of only thousands and not an important percentage of the electorate. I don't think every terbite voting one way would make a lick of difference to any outcome in an election. The outcome would have been similar regardless if it were conservative, liberal or NDP.

Once law, there will be a sudden drop off of clients for agencies and indies. It won't stop altogether but it will nose dive fast. There are those like myself, that don't want or can't have the risk of a criminal charge and we don't want to be splashed across the news as the first arrested under the new law. I don't expect anything to happen the day the law is passed, weeks or months will go by. Everybody will become complacent and relax, then the shoe will drop, there will be a big sting, the media will have a field day - especially if someone notable gets caught. The police really like easy pickings that laws like this give them - simple when the "criminals" come to them and they don't have to lift a finger to get 'em. We are deplorable Johns. They won't care that much about the law's interpretation - leave that for the courts to figure out if we applied it correctly.

I suspect this law will have the biggest impact on agency incalls, and even MPs. Probably less so for indies and outcalls.

Sadly it screws my hobbling abilities completely incalls and MPs are my only options. Guess I'll have to take matters into my own hands (if you know what I mean) to get a release. At very best it will force us to a few regular indie SPs we can trust, no more surfing to find the next hot one …and once our regular retires, finding the next one won't be as risk free or simple. For each of us we will have to think if the risk outweighs the penalties.

Eventually it will evolve but expect the next 5 or more years to be difficult. The court decision to strike down the first law never meant the replacement law would be better for SPs (from an income, not the safety point of view). If anything it will cut down the number of SPs out there, perhaps making them safer by having less of them as demand will also be down (prices too?). The old law never mentioned the internet, now it does. Did Bedford create this nightmare? Perhaps. Did it make SPs safer? Perhaps. Will it reduce the number available clients for SPs. For sure.

I don't want to, but I'm quite sure I will be one of those retiring. It was a fun ride. I remember how nervous I was getting into the hobby when the risks were smaller and everything was stable. Don't want to go back to that uncertainty. Will the laws change again? Maybe, but not for years, the argument will be SPs are now safer and no one (other than the SP) has or will have sympathy for their evil customers. For the mainstream- no one cares about this issue other than out of curiosity - so why would there be any priority to change things again by anyone?

 

[Nikki2]

Maybe someone who is a lawyer can explain it but the way I read the bill and my interpretation of it is different. I read it as third party meaning a pimp advertising the services of the lady. Not the advertising venue as a third party. I read this as an issue for agencies advertising "escorts" and I see an issue for advertising menu style services. I don't see GFE as "sexual" service but BBBJ I do.

There is a lot of definition required in the terms used in the bill and so this is where a lawyer may be able to shed proper light.

Same with parts like a lady can hire a bodyguard or driver, or this should lead to she can hire someone like me as a photographer, or hire ad administrative staff of sorts???? IDK. To many arm chair opinions, doom and gloom posts, etc to weed through so that we can find out some true facts.

Not quite the Nordic model

http://nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/June-2014/Not-quite-the-Nordic-model.aspx

Ottawa has unveiled its new prostitution legislation, and lawyers are already lining up to say that it flies in the face of what the Supreme Court decided in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford.

Bill C-36, dubbed the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, brings the so-called Nordic model to Canada. It introduces a new prohibition — the purchase of sexual services, and communication that surrounds it.

That much was expected. It’s the other parts in the bill that have sent a shock through the legal community.

While the idea underlying the Nordic model is not to criminalize the sex workers themselves, Bill C-36 introduces two criminal offences that target sex workers. It brings back the offence of communicating for the purposes of prostitution – which carries a maximum prison term of six months – but caveats that it’s only illegal if it’s in a public area where “persons under the age of 18 can reasonable by expected to be present.” A new prohibition against advertising sexual services carries a maximum prison term of five years. <snip>

Justice Minister Peter MacKay was asked to clarify, and he did: advertising sexual services publicly will be illegal. For everyone. “If there is a direct connection to the selling of sex that does not present itself in a public way, then it would be legal but if it is done so in a way that is perceived as public or as being available to those under the age of 18, it would be illegal,” he said in a press conference after tabling the bill. <snip>

As you can see, there is a prohibition on advertising and a substantial penalty for those who are caught doing so.

Justin Ling is a great independent journalist who pulls no punches. The article, in its entirety, is worth reading.

 

[TeasePlease]

Does that mean we will have to age verify all terb readers?

 

[mandrill]

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politic...6/power-politics-ballot-box-question-281.html

Poll on whether the bill is acceptable: No = 92%!!!; Yes = 7%; Undecided = 1%.

 

[Nikki2]

Does that mean we will have to age verify all terb readers?

From the article I posted above, “Any kind of advertising, which is by definition public, is going to get captured in this,” Cossman says.

That opens the door for police to go after magazines and websites that publish escort ads, according to several lawyers who spoke with National. I`m not sure age will even be an issue. Can https://terb.cc continue in its current form.

For the record, I first signed up in 2002 and would hate to see it disappear.

 

[TheKing]

Here's some summary tweets from https://twitter.com/Justin_Ling

- Bill is out, advertising sexual services is now illegal.
- Purchasing sexual services is now illegal, as expected.
- Obtaining sexual services for a fee carried a punishment of up to five years, or a fine of $1000-$4000
- Penalties are stiffer if sex is purchased in public, or near a park, school, or religious institution.
- Getting gain from sex work (living off the avails) still criminalized, with the exception of bodyguards or family. (Possibly others)
- You are guilty of materially benefiting from a sex worker if you provided them drugs, or if you are a business.
- It looks like this bill is heavily going after businesses -- massage parlours and brothels.
- If you advertise sexual services, you could face five years of jailtime or $5000
- Sex workers can't be charged for living off the profit of their own work.
- Sex workers will be allowed to advertise their own work.

Can someone explain to me the 'real world' changes this bill would make if it becomes law?

Advertising sexual services is technically illegal today, but it is advertised as companionship -- no change
Purchasing is illegal - this is the BIG one. But can't you 'donate' money or 'give $$$ as a gift' then receive sexual services so it isn't a purchase? Like the tips given in masage parlours..
Sex work/living off the avails - sounds same as before except now it's a criminal act. So the ladies can't get caught is all. Doesn't affect us. See above "purchasing is illegal workaround"
Advertising sexual services - use BP as before, still works fine. Website for an incall agency is advertising, but when you show up you're not connectd to that ad and either is the girl.. you just walked into a hotel room. Hopefully you didn't bring your phone with texts on it

So I don't really get what the difference will be in 'practical terms'. I will probably have to look elsewhere for sex, handle the donation in a different way, call things by another name, but in the end it will be as it is today.... am I missing something??

 

[james t kirk]

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politic...6/power-politics-ballot-box-question-281.html

Poll on whether the bill is acceptable: No = 92%!!!; Yes = 7%; Undecided = 1%.

Doesn't matter.

The poll could be 100% no and the Reformers wouldn't change the law one iota.

I wish I could say that I am surprised, but I'm not. I knew that this would happen. This government has chosen to legislate morality because at their core, they are a bunch of social conservatives very much like their Republican counter-parts in the USA.

 

[elise]

Read the Justin Ling article. Well written.

Problem is the country we live in has a constitution written by governments that don't trust their people (unlike a constitution written by people who don't trust their government).

The freedom of communication part of our law guarantees freedom of speech as a right… right up to the last words that say "within reasonable means". Which makes it no longer an absolute right, but someone else's interpretation. Not black and white but grey so if the government doesn't like it they have an out. Thanks Mr. Trudeau Sr. (RIP)

This is why they are free to ban communication about prostitution and make it illegal.

 

[Nikki2]

ya I read the article, I chatted with him last night on twitter til 2am.

My advertising is not in a public place, where those 18 or younger can expected to be. I don't even think TERB is considered a public place. Would love a legal opinion. If children aren't supervised on the internet, that's the parent's responsibility, not mine.

Justin is good like that, he likes to chat. I too am on Twitter.

If Fred were to lock the entire board down, perhaps it would be considered private. But as it stands right now, it is open to public view.

You should follow James Morton https://twitter.com/MortonsMusings he is a professor at UofT and often comments on current events in the media. You could also pose your question to him.

 

[asterwald]

From the article I posted above, “Any kind of advertising, which is by definition public, is going to get captured in this,” Cossman says.

That opens the door for police to go after magazines and websites that publish escort ads, according to several lawyers who spoke with National. I`m not sure age will even be an issue. Can https://terb.cc continue in its current form.

For the record, I first signed up in 2002 and would hate to see it disappear.

Does the tps have the resources to take on the internet? There are numerous boards.

 

[james t kirk]

Can someone explain to me the 'real world' changes this bill would make if it becomes law?

Advertising sexual services is technically illegal today, but it is advertised as companionship -- no change
Purchasing is illegal - this is the BIG one. But can't you 'donate' money or 'give $$$ as a gift' then receive sexual services so it isn't a purchase? Like the tips given in masage parlours..
Sex work/living off the avails - sounds same as before except now it's a criminal act. So the ladies can't get caught is all. Doesn't affect us. See above "purchasing is illegal workaround"
Advertising sexual services - use BP as before, still works fine. Website for an incall agency is advertising, but when you show up you're not connectd to that ad and either is the girl.. you just walked into a hotel room. Hopefully you didn't bring your phone with texts on it

So I don't really get what the difference will be in 'practical terms'. I will probably have to look elsewhere for sex, handle the donation in a different way, call things by another name, but in the end it will be as it is today.... am I missing something??

I think you're playing with words and that sort of shit will never fly in court.

Unless the judge is a hobbiest, he's not going to give anyone a break because they use terms like "roses" instead of dollars, or "companionship" instead of sex, or "donate" instead of pay. It doesn't work that way. If it did, Tony Soprano could say, "I didn't murder him, I retired him".

The crime is defined by the law, and some mumbo-jumbo isn't going to buy anyone a get out of jail free card.

 

[james t kirk]

Does the tps have the resources to take on the internet? There are numerous boards.

TPS loves loves LOVES busting sex workers. Nothing gives them a bigger rush. (Female ones, not gay ones. They won't touch the gay boys.)

 

[Nikki2]

Does the tps have the resources to take on the internet? There are numerous boards.

You'd like to think the various police services across Canada would be to busy tackling actual crime, wouldn't you. I fear the conservatives will issue a directive, in order to support their legislation and to curry favour with their base, and time will have to be allocated to tracking down all the wayward women who are bold enough to advertise online. I suspect print media will be forced to decline advertising once the bill is passed. Whatever will The Sun group of papers do?!

 

[elise]

Does the tps have the resources to take on the internet? There are numerous boards.

No they would use it as a resource and means to catch SP's clients.

 

[Nikki2]

done!

re terb being public ... if the entire board required a member to log in would it be considered a private place?

Don't quote me, but I believe so. If you can't accidentally 'stumble upon' the board and be exposed to the ads, I would assume it would be considered private.

Dark days in Canada.

 

[asterwald]

Don't quote me, but I believe so. If you can't accidentally 'stumble upon' the board and be exposed to the ads, I would assume it would be considered private.

Dark days in Canada.

That doesnt even make sense. The internet is like 70% porn. Why single out terb over xhamster.

 

[Nikki2]

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politic...6/power-politics-ballot-box-question-281.html

Poll on whether the bill is acceptable: No = 92%!!!; Yes = 7%; Undecided = 1%.

The only problem with the CBC poll is I have already voted twice. Once you clear your cookies you are welcome to vote again and again. Nice!