Technically we are all criminals now
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
- Status
That might be the only thing you want to change, establish pricing that clearly shows you charge everyone the same. Even if your reputation, connections, and specialization mean that mostly SP's hire you that will put you clearly on the right side of the law.
I also think the communications law has a good chance of being shot down along with a few other sections.
But I don't see the section criminalizing clients being found unconstitutional any time soon, which is one reason why I am moving.
I have a complete mainstream business with an adult off shoot. I do more actual work{as in time, product or service} in mainstream shoots, or websites then I do in adult. Thanks for the concern Fuji but I promise, I got this!
Exactly. You're not at risk even if you do what you have always done. You offer to SPs what you can offer anyone else in public, and if a service exclusively to SPs, it is not exploitative and for a fair, market price.
Premium billing which is commensurate with the complex or delicate nature of the work is not illegal. Nothing wrong with what you are doing. Criminal lawyers are worse lol. The law captures disproportionate benefits (i.e., if a 'bodyguard' charges 50% of an SPs income, that would be questionable).
If you think that is the only way a jury can figure out that a transaction was for paid sex you need to wake up. The police may choose not to devote a lot of resources to prostitution but if they do the law gives them plenty of effective tools to do their job.
Here is some legal advice, free of charge:
C36 makes it a crime to purchase sex. Canadian police will have no more difficulty than police in other democracies enforcing that law if they choose to. The only difference is that they won't bring charges against the escort.
Lots of people with criminal records thought not mentioning what the money was really for would protect them.
C36 makes it a crime to purchase sex. Canadian police will have no more difficulty than police in other democracies enforcing that law if they choose to. The only difference is that they won't bring charges against the escort.
Lots of people with criminal records thought not mentioning what the money was really for would protect them.
Again, if the police choose to enforce this law, the law gives them a lot of tools to do so.
I note that on the topic of this law over the past few years I have repeatedly been in the "I told you so" position, from the very beginning when the Bedford case was first brought several years ago and I immediately predicted this outcome, until today.
A whole lot of people in denial.
The only hope really is that Toronto winds up with very laz enforcement, and that will depend a lot on whether you get another Fantino style chief or someone more liberal.
I note that on the topic of this law over the past few years I have repeatedly been in the "I told you so" position, from the very beginning when the Bedford case was first brought several years ago and I immediately predicted this outcome, until today.
A whole lot of people in denial.
The only hope really is that Toronto winds up with very laz enforcement, and that will depend a lot on whether you get another Fantino style chief or someone more liberal.
Certainly those who don't sell sex and their customers have nothing to worry about. However those who do sell sex (moreso their customers) are in for a rude awakening if they think there is some magic phrase you can put in an ad that immunizes anyone against the law.
One thing I've learned is to never trust anyone. Lots of times people have told me things would be OK, and don't worry. However, they were not experts, and even experts are wrong. I think many people here have a whole lot to lose, and in the end people need to weigh the risks against the rewards, kind of like people weighing whether we should engage in these activities, knowing that we can contract an STD.
The risk to lose it all is real in this hobby. Potentially one can get infected with HIV, and this can mean a death sentence, in effect. Yet, many of us still hobby, because the relatively small risk of contracting HIV through bbbj and cfs is worth the enjoyment we get.
We now have an additional risk to worry about, and it can be almost as damaging to our careers, relationships, and our life in general. I do not think those that are concerned about C36 and its ramifications deserve the belittling comments being doled out. I think it wise to be cautious, and those who are not in our position should not be judging us.
Do you guarantee that we will not be arrested, convicted, and end up with a criminal record? I suppose if I end up convicted, lose my job, and future potential of any gainful employment, can't support my family, end up being ostracised by friends and family, and have my name come up on an John's List on the Internet whenever someone Googles me, your reaction MIGHT be, "Oops, I guess you were right. Sorry about that."
I don't think so.
The risk to lose it all is real in this hobby. Potentially one can get infected with HIV, and this can mean a death sentence, in effect. Yet, many of us still hobby, because the relatively small risk of contracting HIV through bbbj and cfs is worth the enjoyment we get.
We now have an additional risk to worry about, and it can be almost as damaging to our careers, relationships, and our life in general. I do not think those that are concerned about C36 and its ramifications deserve the belittling comments being doled out. I think it wise to be cautious, and those who are not in our position should not be judging us.
Do you guarantee that we will not be arrested, convicted, and end up with a criminal record? I suppose if I end up convicted, lose my job, and future potential of any gainful employment, can't support my family, end up being ostracised by friends and family, and have my name come up on an John's List on the Internet whenever someone Googles me, your reaction MIGHT be, "Oops, I guess you were right. Sorry about that."
I don't think so.
There is one huge difference between C-36 and the laws of prostitution in the states of the US. In the US it is illegal from each side as you stated. In C-36, the providers get immunity. The provider won't care to go through the hassles of screening because she is not going to care if you are LE or not. The customer is going to care. Is he going to set up screening for you? Will the provider even want to waste time on that? In the US, both sides try to be careful and do their due diligence because the consequences are equal for both. With C-36, the consequences are lopsided.
I agree, there are additional risks and we need to be cautious.
But we've always lived with the threat of exposure and having our lives turned upside down, so nothing changes - keep being discreet and use terb to share info.
The belittling comments are directed at those who are repeatedly fear mongering which isn't helpful.
Ummm, did everyone miss the part of the senate hearings that pointed out that the gov can't legally give immunity? They can charge the sex worker on a # of other offenses.
Did you guys not know you could be arrested before c36?
The risks associated with each side are different, yet equally important. A sex workers safety is as important as a clients record. Why fight about who's more at risk? That's silly.
Did you guys not know you could be arrested before c36?
The risks associated with each side are different, yet equally important. A sex workers safety is as important as a clients record. Why fight about who's more at risk? That's silly.
- Status
