Bill C-36 tabled (New Prostitution Law)

[elise]

there will still be customers, just Johns who don't give a crap about breaking the law, don't give a crap about a job losing a crap job and don't give a crap about taking a shower

You are right there are those types and we will be reading about them if they get arrested for breaking this law to be.
I know it prostitution won't disappear.

 

[realthing69]

They got me at sex workers are able to advertise their own work. Their work being sexual services.

But it's illegal to advertise sexual services and you could be jailed for 5yrs or fined $5000.

Am I just stupid?

I think its you can't advertise in public (this includes any type of media; print, internet, signs. And no where near children). I think the only thing that isn't considered "public" is email and texting (phones calls, people can possibly hear the conversation).

 

[canada-man]

Follow

Justin Ling
‏@Justin_Ling
Harper told caucus if the courts throw out new prostitution bill, Ottawa would have to "introduce full legalization." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...sition/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter …

 

[harryass]

For the past years in calls have always been illegal and its a criminal offence if found in a bawdy house. That didn't stop ladies from offering them or men coming to them.They will be legal December 2014. We were always taking a chance of getting a record. Its a bill it hasn't been passed.

makes you wonder:
If I made a visit to a to see a special friend than technically not a bawdy house.

So if I came to visit a friend who is just happens to be an SP at her apartment I could be charged?

what a BS bill l!!!!!!!

 

[realthing69]

makes you wonder:
If I made a visit to a to see a special friend than technically not a bawdy house.

So if I came to visit a friend who is just happens to be an SP at her apartment I could be charged?

what a BS bill l!!!!!!!

I think if LE believes the SP's apartment is a bawdy house then yes you can be charged (being found in a bawdy house). But this law exists today.

 

[harryass]

I was outcall only but know many hobbyists doing incalls and it was relatively safe BECAUSE the law said that for clients only being "found" in a bawdy house was a crime (that is being there at the time of raid). But they couldn't bust clients in incalls by sting operations because for one to be charged he had to be "found" in a bawdy house. But if the woman was a cop and not a sex worker then that place would not have been a bawdy house to be found in and arrested for. Not so with new laws. As soon as one opens his wallet, bang he is under arrest for consideration...... They did carry out sting operation when they could like hundreds maybe thousands arrested every year for public solicitations through sting operations and now they will be able to, with incalls (even outcalls by sending an undercover officer).

perhaps, prepaid (not a fan of this method) in advance so there is no physical money being exchanged is a way to get around this.

 

[Cloud]

They got me at sex workers are able to advertise their own work. Their work being sexual services.

But it's illegal to advertise sexual services and you could be jailed for 5yrs or fined $5000.

Am I just stupid?

It makes sense if you see sex workers as victims, which is what the bill does.

The government can say that the ad encourages violence against women because in their view prostitution is violence against women and vulnerable persons. By printing the ad in a newspaper or online you are encouraging violence against women. Freedom of expression would not be allowed because it gets trumped when violence is involved.

Damn, I should quit my job and work for Peter Mackay.


One argument against that is there are several fashion advertisements depicting violence against women while advertising a product.

Here's a link to Jezebel demonstrating it:
http://jezebel.com/5916650/fashions-ongoing-violence-against-women/

If these ads are allowed to be printed in magazines (for example) then escort ads should be allowed as well.

 

[Cloud]

Also, you'd be encouraging people to Commit the crime of purchasing sex.

 

[harryass]

I think if LE believes the SP's apartment is a bawdy house then yes you can be charged (being found in a bawdy house). But this law exists today.

left out a word or two
If I made a visit to a to see a special friend at a hotel than technically not a bawdy house

 

[canada-man]

they are currently talking about this oppressive bill on CPAC

 

[realthing69]

left out a word or two
If I made a visit to a to see a special friend at a hotel than technically not a bawdy house

Sure it can...if and only if LE suspects your friend is operating a bawdy house. In this case, if your special friend stays at the same hotel night after night with men are going in and out, it may raise LE attention. Not only for safety but probably one of the reasons an SP changes hotels often (stay at most 3 nights) is to avoid establishing a "bawdy house".

But I doubt LE would waste their time in this type of situations unless drugs, underage, pimping etc. are involved.

 

[canada-man]

Sara Spike ‏@sara_spike 2h
#BillC36 The Cons use sexworkers as pawns to undermine the SCC and play to their base. Cynical calculated politics. Who cares if people die?

 

[spraggamuffin]

It makes sense if you see sex workers as victims, which is what the bill does.

The government can say that the ad encourages violence against women because in their view prostitution is violence against women and vulnerable persons. By printing the ad in a newspaper or online you are encouraging violence against women. Freedom of expression would not be allowed because it gets trumped when violence is involved.

Damn, I should quit my job and work for Peter Mackay.


One argument against that is there are several fashion advertisements depicting violence against women while advertising a product.

Here's a link to Jezebel demonstrating it:
http://jezebel.com/5916650/fashions-ongoing-violence-against-women/

If these ads are allowed to be printed in magazines (for example) then escort ads should be allowed as well.

That's a lot of "reaching there". Almost a which comes first the chicken or the egg scenario.

So does the sex preclude the violence? or the violence preclude the sex?

Is the circle incomplete if there is no violence but only sex?

They've chosen to skip the whole sex part and emphasize violence?

Maybe having sex with your wife puts her in a position of being a victim of violence.

Presto, "you cannot fuck your wife".

 

[nebvon]

When does this go into effect?

 

[canada-man]

when it reach royal assent

 

[Worf]

Peter Mackay just got married. Give him a few more years when the missus gets uninterested in sex after the kids get older, and he gets out of government. Then he will come to realize what a stupid law he passed, when he can't get laid at home.

 

[lovelatinas]

Already first arrests have been made (although these are the good type of arrests):

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/06/20140606-161444.html

Hopefully that's what Le will keep focusing on. But leave consenting adults out it.

 

[legmann]

But leave consenting adults out it.

Amen to that. Hardly a single source cares to make the distinction between vulnerable/exploited street prostitutes, and the independent or agency SP's that choose to go in this voluntarily and of their own will.

Pure sample bias.

 

[SkyRider]

Next, the "Blue-eyed Taliban" will make philandering by males a criminal offense. Let's put half the Canadian adult male population in jail to make Canada a safer place.

 

[lovelatinas]

I hate to say this and fear mongering but the fact is a sex worker is going to get beaten or even worst murdered under this new law before it is challenged and struck down. At least in the opinion of Katrina Pacey of Pivot Legal Society. Watch the video.

Katrina Pacey a smart intelligent woman and pretty good looking too. She certainly doesn't dress conservative, look at the open blouse. :thumb: