Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[wilbur]

Under Bill c-6 it would be Ticket+ criminal record. This is not a ticket for breaking a bylaw.

In Canada, applying the criminal code for prostitution offenses is much harsher than in the US.

In the US, there are two types of offenses: misdemeanors and felonies. Misdemeanors are punishable by one year in jail or less, and you do not lose your guns, passport and other rights. A felony is when you can go to state prison and your life is screwed until you can get an exonoration. Most first time prostitution offenses are considered misdemeanors.

Once you have a misdemeanor, I understand that you can get the local court to exhonorate you after you prove that you have been a good citizen for a period of time, and the record is expunged.

In Canada, Harper is going to make it a lot more difficult to get a pardon. In fact, I understand that he wants criminals to remain so for life. Using the Criminal Code for punishing minor crimes like prostitution is using a hammer to swat a fly. The US has its problems, but I understand that their justice system does not ruin people's lives for the sake of a $500 fine.

 

[lenny2]

Under Bill c-6 it would be Ticket+ criminal record. This is not a ticket for breaking a bylaw.

Which is little different than it is now when one is arrested & charged with solicitation. LE can always offer the option of John's school, or any similar scheme, with no criminal record. Moreover someone only gets the criminal record in the small chance they are found guilty in a court of law. Which may depend on if the officer or witnesses show up to testify, which they often fail to do, & the case even ever gets that far. This all applies to both the present & new bill.

 

[lenny2]

What's the point in discussing whether a website is a private place our not? It will be illegal to carry advertisements for sex, whether it is on a website, a newspaper, a billboard or using an airplane to pull a banner in the air.

A website is public, but it is not a public place, same as a newspaper is available to the public, but it is a few pages of paper and not a spot on the map.

The point is if the authorities are not interested in pursuing charges against those who are publicly soliciting on websites via their physical devices now, then why worry about them doing so under the new law? If it isn't in the interests of LE to pursue charges when a law is being clearly violated, they won't bother.

Historicly their main focus re prostitution has been the public street scene which is associated with way more violence against women, rampant drug addiction, trafficking, the Pickton cases & neighborhood disturbances.

The rest of the industry is virtually ignored because it causes few problems & makes a lot of people happy, including LE & Tory clients. Occasionally they'll do some work re underage girls & trafficking via the internet, such as with Craigslist which was forced to shut down an adult ad section.

Laws have their main effect, not through enforcement but, 99.99% of the time through fear. Those who don't bow to their fear & are well informed can often do what they want without experiencing any negative consequences.

 

[TeasePlease]

Which is little different than it is now when one is arrested & charged with solicitation. LE can always offer the option of John's school, or any similar scheme, with no criminal record. Moreover someone only gets the criminal record in the small chance they are found guilty in a court of law. Which may depend on if the officer or witnesses show up to testify, which they often fail to do, & the case even ever gets that far. This all applies to both the present & new bill.

I'm not sure exactly how it works in the US, but diversionary resolution wouldn't be at LE's discretion here. It would be up to the Crown. Plus, given what we now know about police databases, lives would be ruined well before a criminal conviction is entered. Having your name associated with an investigation, much less actually being charged, would screw you good.

Laws have their main effect, not through enforcement but, 99.99% of the time through fear. Those who don't bow to their fear & are well informed can often do what they want without experiencing any negative consequences.

This. That's why incalls exist now! (Admittedly, not everyone is comfortable with incalls or high mileage MPs and SCs)

 

[squeezer]

Power Play: Experts divided on prostitution bill - video

http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-chan...binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1

CTV News | Sep 10, 2014

Julia Beazley from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Katrina Pacey from the Pivot Legal Society weigh in on Bill C-36.

Peter Mackay "there will be prosecution for pimps and johns" anyone who doesn't believe this party has to be decimated in 2015 is absolutely playing with fire.

 

[freedom3]

Peter Mackay "there will be prosecution for pimps and johns" anyone who doesn't believe this party has to be decimated in 2015 is absolutely playing with fire.

Have the Liberals said anything different than the Conservatives?

 

[squeezer]

Have the Liberals said anything different than the Conservatives?

Go to Cpac, watch the replay of the hearings. Listen to Sean Casey who is a Liberal MP and if you don't see the difference then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. Read this through and you will see what the Liberals believed in 07 and what the NeoCons thought about protitution,

http://canadasprostitutionpolitics.blogspot.ca/


Again, if the Liberals or NDP were in power faced with the same court challenge it would definitely have been a different outcome and if right wingers can't see this then it's not going to matter what I believe or say.

 

[wilbur]

The point is if the authorities are not interested in pursuing charges against those who are publicly soliciting on websites via their physical devices now, then why worry about them doing so under the new law? If it isn't in the interests of LE to pursue charges when a law is being clearly violated, they won't bother.

I don't believe that putting an ad on the internet, or hosting a website that offers sex for sale is presently against the law. Bill C-36 will make it so; that's a Big Change. If I am mistaken, please correct me and cite the relevant section of the criminal code; I would really like to know.

The law against solliciting only applied in a public place. The internet is not a public place, and there has to be negociation between 2 persons. Negociating onver the telephone is also considered private, and not public. Even if they wire tap to get evidence of a transaction, it doesn't break the sollicitation law because it's private and not public.

 

[wilbur]

Have the Liberals said anything different than the Conservatives?

Yes, they have. Just because Justin happens to be perpetually waffling doesn't mean that the senior members of the party don't have a position. Justin is being handled, and is being told to keep his trap shut so he doesn't blunder into something.

But the issue now is not who has more to offer, but who's policies are the least offensive. There's a lot of things Harper has done that are offensive, and he's still working on it. So Trudeau wins by omission; so what? At least, he's not likely to lead us on the US bandwagon to a confrontation with Russia. And that's just one of the many things Harper is doing that are turning me off the Conservatives. His cabinet is stacked with idiots (MacKay) and assholes (Fantino), and sometimes both (Baird).

 

[freedom3]

Go to Cpac, watch the replay of the hearings. Listen to Sean Casey who is a Liberal MP and if you don't see the difference then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. Read this through and you will see what the Liberals believed in 07 and what the NeoCons thought about protitution,

http://canadasprostitutionpolitics.blogspot.ca/


Again, if the Liberals or NDP were in power faced with the same court challenge it would definitely have been a different outcome and if right wingers can't see this then it's not going to matter what I believe or say.

I never vote Conservative, but with all the criticism from the Liberals and NDP, neither party has said what they would do if they were in power.

 

[Hailey♥4U]

Justin Trudeau said that prostitution ( including adult consensual ) is a violence against women. Liberals didn't propose any amendment to Bill c-36, only NDP proposed an amendment to the provision that bans pruchase and suggested that only purchasing from trafficked women would be punished but that amendment was rejected by conservatives.

where / when did Trudeau specifically say this as indicated above in bold?

 

[Siocnarf]

Liberals didn't propose any amendment to Bill c-36...

The official position of Liberals in the Justice Committee was that no amendment could salvage this bill and that it should be scraped entirely. They also made it clear they did not believe that any significant amendment would be accepted by MacKay so they didn't even bother.

Liberals and NPD don't have any reason to propose any other model before the elections. All they have to do is discredit that bill, sit back, and let MacKay hang himself.

For those who say these committees are a waste of time, this is not exact. These committees will not prevent the law, but what is said in committee will be studied as evidence and background during a future constitutional challenge.

 

[squeezer]

Consistent with her position on C-36, Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, has just introduced to the House of Commons motions which would in effect get rid of the Bill as a whole:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...Order&Mode=1&Language=E&Parl=41&Ses=2&File=12

Anyone interested in following the progress of the Bill, can track it here:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=6635303

Right on Ms. May! Hopefully the rest will jump on board.

 

[wilbur]

In French, Trudeau went further, saying it's important to recognize that "prostitution itself is a form of violence against women." He called for a "responsible, informed debate" on the issue.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jus...oposal-to-regulate-tax-prostitution-1.2500357

That was in January, eons ago. Same as when he said that the Long-gun registry was a failure.... quickly nuanced the next day as a retraction. He's been since told to shut up and leave his personal opinions aside for now, as he's been talking gibberish. He's on a leash and programmed to talk, but with nothing of substance. If this was a confirmed party policy, the Liberal MP's and Senators on the 2 committees, would have never spoken against the bill.

 

[lenny2]

A website is public, but it is not a public place, same as a newspaper is available to the public, but it is a few pages of paper and not a spot on the map.

A newspaper has to be in a physical place somewhere, either in a private place or in a public place such as at a newspaper stand. In public view it is in a public place & soliciting publicly, just like an ad for sex on the side of a moving bus, car or skytrain. Soliciting thus is illegal, but the authorities have not to date been interested in prosecuting it for reasons stated in my previous post.*

The same applies to the internet & the many sites on it which are open to public view, hence publicly soliciting. While the laws re soliciting may have been made before the internet, clearly such sites would come under the intention of the law re public solicitation & be considered a public place.

Furthermore, anywhere that is physical can be considered a place. Otherwise it doesn't exist. Since the internet exists and is physical, it is a place, as are its websites.

* For this reason for years now many Canadian SP's have worded their online ads to offer company per hour rather than specific sexual services. In so doing they safeguarded themselves against prosecution for publicly soliciting sex. However, as it has turned out, the authorities have had no interest in pursuing such charges. Why would LE change their M.O. under a new law such as Bill C-36?

Likewise for many years now online SP reviews often do not speak of paying cash for specific sexual services but avoid the subject or use code language.

 

[John386]

Long before the new bill, ladies had been advertising their services for time and companionship. In a lot of ads, they would use actual disclaimers making clear that any money exchanged is for time and companionship only. Under the new bill how would advertising for time and companionship or how would responding to an ad for time and companionship be illegal?

 

[lenny2]

I'm not sure exactly how it works in the US, but diversionary resolution wouldn't be at LE's discretion here. It would be up to the Crown.

Apparently enforcement is up to local areas & differs widely. Until we see evidence of changes on the ground, i'd take it as a safe bet that history will repeat itself & the status quo maintained in each location. Those who are able to may consider moving to a different city.

Plus, given what we now know about police databases, lives would be ruined well before a criminal conviction is entered. Having your name associated with an investigation, much less actually being charged, would screw you good.

Can you elaborate? Criminal conviction or ruin are already possibilities under the present laws & have occurred sometimes. For example via SO's who track, smell or intuitively know their partner is "cheating". Forget LE; that is by far your biggest chance of being "busted".

This. That's why incalls exist now! (Admittedly, not everyone is comfortable with incalls or high mileage MPs and SCs)

Please explain. How is this going to help you?

 

[Siocnarf]

A newspaper has to be in a physical place somewhere, either in a private place or in a public place such as at a newspaper stand.

It has to be in a place, but it is not a place. If I leave a porn magazine in public where children can see it, I am responsible, not the publisher. With proper disclaimer a website is not responsible for children seeing the website.

For this reason for years now many Canadian SP's have worded their online ads to offer company per hour rather than specific sexual services. In so doing they safeguarded themselves against prosecution for publicly soliciting sex.

This is not true. If you say 200$/h including BBBJ and CIM, it is clear that you offer sex in exchange for money. Whether it's all you can eat or à la carte does not change anything. Police and judge know as well as clients what the codes mean. The only reason they don't prosecute is because they don't want to. The only ads safe from prosecutions are those that do not refer to sex at all and state that it is for time and companionship only.

 

[lenny2]

This is not true. If you say 200$/h including BBBJ and CIM, it is clear that you offer sex in exchange for money. Whether it's all you can eat or à la carte does not change anything. Police and judge know as well as clients what the codes mean. The only reason they don't prosecute is because they don't want to. The only ads safe from prosecutions are those that do not refer to sex at all and state that it is for time and companionship only.

Those are the kind of ads i am referring to. I was looking at 3 or 4 the other day & one of them had a gal in sexy lingerie, but no mention of any sex at all, let alone specific "sexual services" like BJ, DATY, DFK. I'd say she has made herself immune from prosecution under present or future solicitation laws.*

As for other SP's who list a specific website menu & price per hour, they are not so safe from the law. But thus far LE have not been interested in charging them with soliciting. Just like LE never seem to arrest jaywalkers or publicly injecting heroin users in certain parts of Vancouver, with LE there often observing it as it happens. It's not that they couldn't or a law isn't being broken, but they either don't want to or are under orders to let it go.

*BTW, have you seen any SP newsprint ads lately that offered a BBBJ for X amount of dollars, or anything similar? I've seen hundreds of these SP ads, but not a single one like those. Those would be publicly soliciting & it's illegal. The newspapers would be liable. If you think otherwise, try submitting one, see what happens and post their reasons why they rejected it here.

 

[Siocnarf]

I never paid attention to printed ads in recent years, I only looked on the web. Like you say I'm sure newspaper don't publish ads with explicit menu. But on the web it's not unusual to see prices for specific services or for different packages. Maybe these decreased in the last month, but I haven't seen enough to tell.

Yet I'm not sure if it qualifies at soliciting in public. I'm certain some lawyers would make that argument, but I would not bet on the judge's decision. The problem is not that any interpretation is wrong, it's just that it's undecided and unpredictable how it would play in court.