C-36 hype

[Rob]

Could somebody enlighten me, what this bill c-36 really changes ?

As I understand, regardless of c-36 incalls always were illegal, MP handjob was illegal (not mentioning other stuff which we all know happens), picking girls from the street was illegal. The only thing that dramatically changes is the status of the outcall.

LE was responding to underage or drug reports, but other then that they did not seem to bother with hundreds of incalls, which technically are common bawdy houses and therefore illegal anyways.

I read multiple concerns from terb members about posting reviews under bill-36. But a review is not a confession and is not legally binding.

So, what will essentially change under this bill c-36 ?

 

[GPIDEAL]

As I understand it, a review would need other supporting evidence to corroborate it, even if LE knew who the actual buyer is.

There are many other threads.

Basically, an SP is immune from prosecution for selling, advertising and collecting proceeds.

The buyer is breaking the law by buying or even just communicating for the purpose of buying, regardless where a session takes place.

Anybody that runs an ad for an SP is breaking the law too.

As for MPs, we've discussed more at length in another thread. Licensed body rub joints are not selling sexual services anyways, so they are probably not going to be affected. Holistics may be under more scrutiny since touching is even more restrictive as I understand it.

All this means is that you should be more careful to mitigate your risks.

See well reviewed girls or those with an established history (no fly-by-nighters posing as an SP but really LE in a sting operation) or regulars, and be more discreet in your communications.

 

[wangbang]

Awesome, another C-36 thread.

 

[GPIDEAL]

1 - From hobbyist point of view paid date (paying for sex) was legal but now it is illegal. So one could engage in paid sex legally at home or in a hotel outcall but not so anymore.
2 - Before being "found" in a bawdy house was illegal (had to be there at the time of raid) which was same chances as being in an air plane when it crashes. Being in a bawdy house is now legal.
3 - Before communication in a "public place" was illegal but one could communicate via internet or phone but now even the latter is illegal
4 - Before SPs could advertise themselves or someone on their behalf but now only SPs themselves can advertise legally.
5 - Before both sides could be charged for 2 and 3 but now only one side (the buyer) can be charged for 1, 2 or 3. The sex workers are considered as victims.
6 - Now sexual activities banned extends to even lap/contact dancing and HJ. I am not sure what was it before or how this would affect strip bars and massage Parlours.
7- Before it was illegal to live on avails period but now it is legal for drivers and guards but illegal for pimps (if it is exploitative. So good luck proving that as many pimps now pose as guards or drivers!!!!!).

The idiot law makers didn't introduce mandatory minimum sentences for pimping and trafficking as I was hoping for.

As for reviews , Before one could review (or one could advertise) sex and sexual services without confession to committing any crime as purchase of sex was legal as long as it was not happening in a public place (like seeing SWs or in strip bars or MPs) but now such reviews would be sort of confession to an illegal act regardless of where it has taken place. Whether it carries any legal weight (or one can claim it was a made up story or fiction) I am no lawyer to comment on that.

Correction. Prostitutes still cannot communicate in a public place.

Section 15 (1.1) Communicating to provide sexual services for consideration

(1.1) Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who communicates with any person — for the purpose of offering or providing sexual services for consideration — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre.

 

[Hard Idle]

So, what will essentially change under this bill c-36 ?

In a nutshell, it seems to create more opportunities for convictions on a wider variety of activities. Beyond that, it's unclear. It could change everything, or nothing at all.

It's all up to Attorney Generals, Crown Prosecutors & local police.

Here in southern Ontario, if they enforce the new law the same way they were enforcing the previous one - as a tool with which to attack the worst types of pimps & pimping operations - it shouldn\t make much difference at all.

If on the other hand they chose to flex the new legal muscle and test it's limits in the courts, it could lead to a spike in charges & prosecutions which could continue until the C36 hits a legal pothole.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Technical and Backgrounder Papers are posted in another thread here are very informative too (on SCC challenge to C36).

 

[MPAsquared]

Buying sex wasn't legal in all forms or formats before.

A Lot of it is the same with different wording. A found-in is now a john. A bawdy house is how a commercial enterprise. Living off the avails is now profiteering. Communication is now more restricted.

C-36 legalized pimps via the bodyguard clause. Legalized entrapment. And halts clients from reporting the very stuff they want to prevent...trafficking & underage.

C-36 is stupid. Lol.

So, nothing changes & everything changes. Ironic isn't it.

 

[fuji]

In a nutshell, it seems to create more opportunities for convictions on a wider variety of activities. Beyond that, it's unclear. It could change everything, or nothing at all.

It's all up to Attorney Generals, Crown Prosecutors & local police.

Here in southern Ontario, if they enforce the new law the same way they were enforcing the previous one - as a tool with which to attack the worst types of pimps & pimping operations - it shouldn\t make much difference at all.

If on the other hand they chose to flex the new legal muscle and test it's limits in the courts, it could lead to a spike in charges & prosecutions which could continue until the C36 hits a legal pothole.

Correct.

The communications sections are likely to hit a legal pothole, the criminalization of prostitution itself less so.

 

[trtinajax]

As I understand it, a review would need other supporting evidence to corroborate it, even if LE knew who the actual buyer is.

Reviews are not illegal under Bill C-36. As far as the LE are concerned you could be posting a review of your SO or a review could be about a woman you picked up in a bar for a one night hookup or someone you met on one of the dating web sites as long as you don't say you paid her or discuss her rates. As far as I can see in bill c-36 bar hookups are not illegal unless you buy the lady drinks, dinner, etc. That is one of the crazy points about this law, I bet that on average the nightly hookups are far more exploitive of the women than are the paid "dates". Mr. MacKay left the bar hookups out of the legislation so he can resume his hot stud on Parliament Hill when his wife gets smart and dumps him like Belinda.

 

[adventurous_man]

so, am i right when i assume that having a sugar babe would be against the law too?

 

[bver_hunter]

Also, there are a number of women who organize ladies nights out and hire the services of male strippers at pubs/ bars in a private room. I am told that BJs and handjobs are permitted as well as expected. Does this make the ladies criminals and the male strippers the victims if the police happen to stumble on this venue during the activities?

 

[fuji]

so, am i right when i assume that having a sugar babe would be against the law too?

Yes, and that is probably one of the high risk areas. A sugar babe has a lot of information about you and if things ever turn sour she can waltz into a police station and get you arrested on pretty hard evidence. Since selling isn't a crime she can do that with impunity and paint herself as the victim of a luring perv.

A sugar babe may be new to the concept of sex for money and have no clients lose, may feel regrets, have a change of heart, get jealous of your real life SO, may get caught by her bf/family and turn on you to pacify them, etc.

Better stick to a pro and actively limit how much information they have about who you actually are, etc.

 

[fuji]

Also, there are a number of women who organize ladies nights out and hire the services of male strippers at pubs/ bars in a private room. I am told that BJs and handjobs are permitted as well as expected. Does this make the ladies criminals and the male strippers the victims if the police happen to stumble on this venue during the activities?

Yes. If it goes that far. I doubt that this will be an area the police focus on but if they stumbled across proof, say called to the scene on another matter, they could lay charges.

 

[Siocnarf]

The communications sections are likely to hit a legal pothole, the criminalization of prostitution itself less so.

This doesn't make much sense. I know people argue that prostitution is now officially ''illegal'' in the sense that getting money for sex is a crime, with simply an immunity from prosecution for the seller.

In that optic, how would criminalizing some aspect of communication be unconstitutional? They are still involved in an ''illegal'' act. Either this ''illegality'' exempts them from protection under section 7, or it doesn't. My point is that if this communicating provision is unconstitutional, so is all the rest of the law. Either they have a right to safety or they don't.

The court cannot say section 213 is a breach of their constitutional rights because of their right to safety, but section 286 is not a breach because they have no right to safety... If they have a right to safety, any provision that prevents that is a breach of their freedom. If they have no right to safety, section 213 is not unconstitutional... unless there is something magical about school grounds that nullifies the logic of constitutional arguments.

 

[fuji]

In that optic, how would criminalizing some aspect of communication be unconstitutional? They are still involved in an ''illegal'' act. Either this ''illegality'' exempts them from protection under section 7, or it doesn't. My point is that if this communicating provision is unconstitutional, so is all the rest of the law. Either they have a right to safety or they don't.

First, because speech is generally protected, and courts usually take a very conservative line around any restraint on speech. More directly, because this section far more overtly contradicts the SCC.

Since the criminalization of purchase doesn't directly restrict what a prostitute can do the argument is much harder to make. You have to make a convoluted argument that her business dries up unless she takes steps that you have to argue put her at risk. The crown retort will be that the purpose of the act is in fact to reduce demand so that is no objection, they will assert that the decline in demand on the whole makes women safe, and they will further dispute that there are not ways for a prostitute to remain safe. It will come down to a cost argument and likely bog down in some decades long review of evidence.

This is why your bar association link took issue with the communications section but not with the criminalization of purchase.

 

[Siocnarf]

First, because speech is generally protected, and courts usually take a very conservative line around any restraint on speech. More directly, because this section far more overtly contradicts the SCC.
...
...The crown retort will be that the purpose of the act is in fact to reduce demand so that is no objection, they will assert that the decline in demand on the whole makes women safe, and they will further dispute that there are not ways for a prostitute to remain safe. It will come down to a cost argument and likely bog down in some decades long review of evidence.

This is why your bar association link took issue with the communications section but not with the criminalization of purchase.

It only contradict the SCC if the premises of Bedford are still valid under C-36. Like I said, either the safety premise is valid or it's not. If a provision drives victims into a dangerous situation, directly or indirectly, without any REAL benefit, then it is unacceptable.

The govnernment's argument is that reducing demand will reduce the supply (move women out of this trade). If we reduce demand to some extant, but without reducing the supply then the law has failed. A slight reduction of demand (the best we can expect) won't reduce supply and will instead force workers to work even longer to meet their needs. In that respect, demand-reduction strategy can be expected to increase supply:
http://charleswlhill.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-unintended-consequences-of-demand_1.html
Moreover they will have to do so in more dangerous conditions.
...
The CBA did not take position on the purchase, because they would not themselves venture a guess on it's effect on safety. Their position is that current data is not sufficient to say absolutely that it will be detrimental to the safety of workers. If it were, however, it would be ground for a constitutional challenge in their opinion. Like I said safety is still paramount. Section 213 is the same so it's clearly unconstitutional. Section 286 is new, so it's effect remain unsure, although present data allow us to predict bad results on safety and little or no result on the decrease in prostitution.

 

[fuji]

I fully expect the law to fail, and to ruin lives, but in and of itself that does not seem to me like a constitutional objection.

The fundamental issues raised by the SCC will be addressed by some challenges but the bulk of the legislation will remain intact until we fix it legislatively.

Courts will not strike down a law just because it has not achieved its stated goals.

 

[Siocnarf]

I fully expect the law to fail, and to ruin lives, but in and of itself that does not seem to me like a constitutional objection.

Like I said earlier: if it simply fails, that is not a challenge. If it fails while ruining the lives of the people it's supposed to save, that's a definitive challenge. If a law ruins lives with little or no benefits that is the whole point of the constitution. Of course, the problem is that it take some evidential foundation to prove the harms and that can take many years.

One last thing about the communication provision: I am not so certain that it is problematic in and of itself. People are making the mistake of looking at separate provisions and thinking this one or that one is problematic. We have to look at it as a whole. Indeed during the Ontario appeal (If I remember correctly), the court ruled that the communication law was not a problem in the context of legal brothels. Likewise, if buying and advertisement was perfectly legal, I think that simply criminalizing the communication near schools could be ruled as reasonable. This would leave enough means to conduct legal business while avoiding exposure of children.

On the other hand, simply removing that provision while leaving buying illegal doesn't change anything at all to the result. To me that provision is a completely moot point when it comes to safety of the worker.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Buying sex wasn't legal in all forms or formats before.

A Lot of it is the same with different wording. A found-in is now a john. A bawdy house is how a commercial enterprise. Living off the avails is now profiteering. Communication is now more restricted.

C-36 legalized pimps via the bodyguard clause. Legalized entrapment. And halts clients from reporting the very stuff they want to prevent...trafficking & underage.

C-36 is stupid. Lol.

So, nothing changes & everything changes. Ironic isn't it.

Good points but buying sex from an out call was not illegal. Living off the avails is also covered by 'material benefit'.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Yes, and that is probably one of the high risk areas. A sugar babe has a lot of information about you and if things ever turn sour she can waltz into a police station and get you arrested on pretty hard evidence. Since selling isn't a crime she can do that with impunity and paint herself as the victim of a luring perv.

A sugar babe may be new to the concept of sex for money and have no clients lose, may feel regrets, have a change of heart, get jealous of your real life SO, may get caught by her bf/family and turn on you to pacify them, etc.

Better stick to a pro and actively limit how much information they have about who you actually are, etc.

I had quasi sugar babe retaliations before C-36 so what you say is also possible. It's a good wake-up call.

HOWEVER, if a sugar-babe acts irresponsibly and with extreme malice, C-36 immunity does not extend to extortion. This doesn't get the guy off the hook, unless he warns her if blackmail is on her mind, and she then backs off.