Bill C-36 tabled (New Prostitution Law)
- Thread starter DigitallyYours
- Start date
So it has come to this. we are comparing Canada to Uganda and the U.S. Canada, where U.S. war resisters, black slaves and gays found a haven.this how they shame gays in Uganda newspapers, same as they do with Johns in the US
Blame Harper and his croniesSo it has come to this. we are comparing Canada to Uganda and the U.S. Canada, where U.S. war resisters, black slaves and gays found a haven
Here's a really good rebuttal to this idiot:
http://sussexcountyangel.wordpress....es-of-johntv-videotapes-strangers-having-sex/
Their rational goes against the charter. Plus it's Harper's hidden agenda to slap it back in the SCC face. Harper has bullied and attacked one SCC judge already.Not really sure where to begin here. For all the shit the conservatives are getting, they are not trying to kill anyone. They are attempting to regulate morality and to some degree play some politics. Both these things are quite normal and the fact it may endanger some people is an unintended consequence.
I have worked before to develop government policy and what you learn is that you ask 3 questions:
1) Why are we doing it?
2) Can we do it?
3) Should we do it?
The answer to the first 2 questions the conservatives have made quite publicly clear. It really is the last question that is obviously quite controversial. Getting back to your original question, even though many people don't like this policy - Most don't believe the main objective is to endanger and kill sex workers. Whenever a government makes any policy, there are obviously some people that win and some people that loose. Especially in this case, as this is an odd criminal law that is actually a regulatory law in disguise. While you could argue, no one is actually getting hurt by allowing prostitution, the governments argument is really that prostitution hurts society and therefore they need to regulate public morals. Again, I don't agree with the position but I am just explaining the rationale.
The senate will be sitting until June 27 when they break for summer. They return 3rd week of September.
Technically possible to push everything through by the end of June? or is it very unlikely until the fall?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlBusiness/senate/calendar/cal2014-e.htm
Technically possible to push everything through by the end of June? or is it very unlikely until the fall?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlBusiness/senate/calendar/cal2014-e.htm
I am surprised no gangs have gotten to him yet and just shoot him down.Here's a really good rebuttal to this idiot:
http://sussexcountyangel.wordpress....es-of-johntv-videotapes-strangers-having-sex/
What are the chances Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the House of Commons reject this bill??You're forgetting that it has to go through the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for review and discussion, before the 2nd and 3rd readings in the House of Commons
Unless you philander with an under-age lady, you're okay.It is illegal in Cuba and God forbid spending even one day in a communist jail with people whom I can't speak their language, total nightmare. I know laws are not enforced but the consequences can be so horrible.
Please note that it is illegal ***for Cubans*** IF they get caught seen with a turista in a public place.
You should try it some day. Go to Havana.
The senate will be sitting until June 27 when they break for summer. They return 3rd week of September.
Technically possible to push everything through by the end of June? or is it very unlikely until the fall?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlBusiness/senate/calendar/cal2014-e.htm
Thinking about it, it's not a bill that they likely want to rush through, maybe they will make few revisions, i don't know, it's not like a bill to fight terrorism if someone bombed the CN tower.
In a post Bill C-36 environment, maybe writing a negative review about an unscrupulous SP could cause a backlash but we might have to be more cautious as to our identities, etc.To be quite honest. The quality of escorts lately has taken a real nosedive. Sure, prices are going down,
but so is service. Onetime, I paid an escort $260 for an hour...she was literally out the door in less than 15 minutes.
I've had some escorts flat out rob me. I paid them, they leave the room...I wait there for about 10 minutes,
I go out to see and she's on the couch on her cell...she looks at me and says (paraphrasing)
"Thank you for coming, I have someone else coming soon."
What am I to do? Ask for my money back? Make a fuss about it? Don't leave until I get my money?
Why not write a bad review online? Sure, and she's got my number and can probably get a pic
of me from the surveillance cameras. Post that online and come after me.
What guy here is willing to 'risk' his privacy as is with the current 'freedoms' we have? Answer: None.
So, I did what too many guys would do: Quietly put my pants/shoes on and leave.
I'm actually thinking about dating 'non-sp' women again...but they are really a pain to deal with.
What I would give for an escort who actually delivers on what she fucking advertises on. 60 minutes is 60 f'ing minutes!
But before anything changes, you could've written that negative review. If she retaliated like you say, that would've been more troublesome for her. (If you're attached, please be more discreet with your identity or contact info. Use a throw-away phone.)
No matter how you slice it, the Harper majority Gov't will push this bill thru! Yes it's a stupid bill. It is a cleverly worded document to allow an SP to work in her home and to advertise her services by herself and to pay for those ads herself. Note the Gov't at some point can demand to see who is paying for those ads with this new legislation and therefore be able to identify an SP, a pimp or other people in the industry. The irony is that the SP can sell sex, but who is going to buy now that it will be illegal to purchase, with the threat of a criminal record on your person??? This is a lose lose situation on all counts.
I have no doubt it will be passed very quickly and I have no doubt it will also be challenged at the Supreme Court level again. The problem is that the case won't get back to the Supreme Court for about 5 years during which time it will be in full effect. So the game changes now boys and girls. How do we continue to play and not get caught, arrested, charged, and convicted?????
Are we going to do the deed first to ensure it is not LE undercover and then pay after the fact once we are certain it is a legitimate SP? This is the only thing I can think of unless you are visiting a regular and know it is safe. Incall services at agencies will all be under scrutiny and their locations will be deemed common bawdy houses, you will not want to be caught in one of them for any reason.
So where do we, the players go from here? Your suggestions are welcome about how to continue playing the game in a safe manner.
And remember, undercover LE do not have to admit they are Police when you ask them the question. Many people mistakenly believe an undercover cop has to admit they are undercover. NOT SO!!!!
About that last point, I thought that if they so they aren't a cop, that they lied to induce you to commit a crime.
NOW, Bill C-36 says someone who is selling their services for sex can not be charged for aiding and abetting, etc. etc.. So this is a sort of immunity if a female cop poses as an escort, even if she is asked and lies about it?
I think that this could raise an issue or potential defense.
If they never intended to sell their services (i.e.,, undercover cop), then perhaps they can be charged for aiding and abetting?
I hope so. Technically, incalls (agency and independent) were illegal under the 'old' laws and they were largely free from threat of police action (except in those cases where outright exploitation, involvement of minors or human trafficking were involved)."Please note the donations are for the ladies time and companionship not for any sexual services. Anything that happens is between consenting adults."
This type of wording already in use by some agencies (eg. HSG) in advertisements renders Bill C-36 moot. Which is why the over-the-top hysterical over-reactions is frankly ridiculous. Calm down, guys. Calm down. The sky will never fall in.
I know, but I was thinking that the undercover cop could be charged for entrapping you (and maybe you can use entrapment as a defense if they NEVER intended on providing sexual services), but you would have to first ask them if they are a cop.If you read the text of bill c-36, there is a provision that says the ones who sell their own services cannot be charged for aiding.
"Please note the donations are for the ladies time and companionship not for any sexual services. Anything that happens is between consenting adults."
This type of wording already in use by some agencies (eg. HSG) in advertisements renders Bill C-36 moot. Which is why the over-the-top hysterical over-reactions is frankly ridiculous. Calm down, guys. Calm down. The sky will never fall in.
All professional escorts in the States use this disclaimer. I doubt acronyms are used too in any list of services. Such a disclaimer is borrowed and used by many local indies and agencies.
And what precisely, besides self-delusion and wishful thinking, leads you to believe that the Liberals and NDP do not support this bill?The Tories have the majority on this Committee, so unlikely. Depending on how things turn out though, the members from the NDP and the Liberals might submit a minority, dissenting report.
Because they will do anything to oppose Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.And what precisely, besides self-delusion and wishful thinking, leads you to believe that the Liberals and NDP do not support this bill?
