stop trying to get around the new law

[George The Curious]

Based on technicalities. Cops and prosecutors are too smart to let you argue with lame excuses like you are paying for time only, buying condom for $250 all the horse shit will not hold up in the court because all the cirumstances surround the event proves you are paying for sex, and you may try to get around the letters of law, courts are designed to enforce the spirit of law.

So we are screwed if new law passes. Stop trying. We are all criminals.

 

[userz]

Exactly.

 

[George The Curious]

how about stop starting new threads when there's already a dozen on the same topic?

This is the thread to end all other new prostitution law threads , all the others ones are trying to overcome the new law. I say it's pointless.

 

[D-Fens]

and the first judge who looks at the laws will throw the case out. and I walk. This legislation is so vague and broad it will be a nightmare for LE to try and enforce. This bill is a joke. what's a sexual service? Be Specific. Define it. how am I suppose to follow the law when I don't even know what the fuck they are outlawing? It has to be clear otherwise it's not a valid law that can be enforced. and you know what? the highest judge in Canada agrees with me.

 

[George The Curious]

and the first judge who looks at the laws will throw the case out. and I walk. This legislation is so vague and broad it will be a nightmare for LE to try and enforce. This bill is a joke. what's a sexual service? Be Specific. Define it. how am I suppose to follow the law when I don't even know what the fuck they are outlawing? It has to be clear otherwise it's not a valid law that can be enforced. and you know what? the highest judge in Canada agrees with me.

There are probably a thousand ways to define murder and theft too. But when it comes down to it, its up to the local judge to decide what is sexual service. Not everyone gets their time with supreme court.

 

[staggerspool]

Based on technicalities. Cops and prosecutors are too smart to let you argue with lame excuses like you are paying for time only, buying condom for $250 all the horse shit will not hold up in the court because all the cirumstances surround the event proves you are paying for sex, and you may try to get around the letters of law, courts are designed to enforce the spirit of law.

So we are screwed if new law passes. Stop trying. We are all criminals.

You seem to think somehow that you can shut people up - I get that you disagree with me, but I disagree with you. I'm not going to argue these points with you, because you aren't going to take anything I say seriously, which is totally fine with me. But please don't think you have the authority to tell people what they can or cannot say. You haven't any sort of authority beyond what you can demonstrate with your written words.

What I get is you are bitter, that you can't see anything beyond your point of view, and you intend to try to force your bitterness and your lack of vision on everyone else.

Get over yourself.

 

[peter4025]

I'm paying my ex $xxxxx amount for spousal support. Once in a while is sleep with her. Will this be consider paying for sex

 

[staggerspool]

There are probably a thousand ways to define murder and theft too. But when it comes down to it, its up to the local judge to decide what is sexual service. Not everyone gets their time with supreme court.

Actually, you are wrong. But I'm not going to bother telling you why.

 

[staggerspool]

umm no ... murder is clearly defined in the Criminal Code ... as should sexual services. It would be impossible to ban an activity without defining what it includes. Elementary, really.

Bingo. She explained it to you. So how's shutting down the discussion going for you, George?

 

[peter4025]

umm no ... murder is clearly defined in the Criminal Code ... as should sexual services. It would be impossible to ban an activity without defining what it includes. Elementary, really.

I do t won't to be the one that has to test this

 

[George The Curious]

I'm paying my ex $xxxxx amount for spousal support. Once in a while is sleep with her. Will this be consider paying for sex

Yeah try this argument if you are actually charged under the new and say this in court.

 

[staggerspool]

LoL I tried ... but ya why bother? I concur

No point in bothering for him, but it helps others maybe... you nailed, thanks.

 

[George The Curious]

Bingo. She explained it to you. So how's shutting down the discussion going for you, George?

Lol. I won't bother with finer points of definition. I think government will find ways to make an acceptable definition that is enforceble.

 

[D-Fens]

Lawyers who looked at the bill are already going like "WTF is this shit?" They are going to have a field day with this one. So how dare LE enforce this pathetic excuse of a law when the highest judge in Canada tells them they are wrong?

I can't believe just how dumb Mackay is

 

[peter4025]

Yeah try this argument if you are actually charged under the new and say this in court.

I'll have to stop sleeping with her as she can blackmail me

 

[George The Curious]

You are acting like you are all legal experts and like you can beat the system somehow. We aare just bunch of horny guys and prostitutes trying to make a living. The society is against us at large . The government is going to crack down hard. The only way to avoid trouble is not getting caught, not argue on technicalities about law.

 

[op12]

There are probably a thousand ways to define murder and theft too. But when it comes down to it, its up to the local judge to decide what is sexual service. Not everyone gets their time with supreme court.

Murder

 

[George The Curious]

Lawyers who looked at the bill are already going like "WTF is this shit?" They are going to have a field day with this one. So how dare LE enforce this pathetic excuse of a law when the highest judge in Canada tells them they are wrong?

I can't believe just how dumb Mackay is

Your lawyer is laughing because he knows how much increased business he is going to get once this law passes.

 

[staggerspool]

Lol. I won't bother with finer points of definition. I think government will find ways to make an acceptable definition that is enforceble.

So now they DO need a definition eh? It isn't up to the judge after all then? Any old definition won't cut it? Why would that be? How many tries do you think they have to define it acceptably, since they didn't define it in the bill? Isn't it possible that the first case that gets to court will be thrown out by the judge because there isn't an acceptable legal definition, and then we are back on our way to the Supremes?

Wait, don't answer that. It might encourage us to try to get around your suggestion... and the whole point of this thread is that you think we shouldn't do that.

 

[D-Fens]

Your lawyer is laughing because he knows how much increased business he is going to get once this law passes.

if it leads to another charter challenge and it being struck down again. it's worth it.