Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.
- Thread starter Toronto`s Finest
- Start date
Clear your inbox. I had another bit of info about Cuba.Should we be suspicious of new members? They could be cops. I suggest making a separate thread for members who have been here for more than a few years so they can share sting operation experiences and suspicions.
Lol most cops &bylaw have handles on terb. This isn't a secret site. But nowadays folks pm any old info to anyone who asks. I miss the days when info was earned!!! Members are so frivolous.Should we be suspicious of new members? They could be cops. I suggest making a separate thread for members who have been here for more than a few years so they can share sting operation experiences and suspicions.
Ya, I learned my lesson.Lol most cops &bylaw have handles on terb. This isn't a secret site. But nowadays folks pm any old info to anyone who asks. I miss the days when info was earned!!! Members are so frivolous.
You would be surprised how many guys pay prostitutes just to have someone to talk to for an hour or two. I bet just about every provider on this board would agree. In addition any judge in this country would also have to accept the fact that not all men are paying for sex so it then becomes a matter of convincing the judge that no sex took place and if the SP backs up the guys story you have no case.For example, they can get the testimony of another client who had purchased sex, and use that in combination with other circumstantial evidence to persuade a jury that the $250 was not really for pleasant conversation.
The other client will be providing testimony against a variety of SP's as part of a plea deal, in exchange for a conditional discharge, agreeing to cooperate with a police investigation, etc., they can also subpoena the SP herself and force her to testify under oath on penalty of perjury.
The police are good at what they do. The only question really is how often they decide to work on these cases.
Again, assume that a jury will figure out whatever the people booking actually expect. Unless people booking really genuinely do not expect sex that will not be much of a defense.
This one doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.For example, they can get the testimony of another client who had purchased sex, and use that in combination with other circumstantial evidence to persuade a jury that the $250 was not really for pleasant conversation.
The other client will be providing testimony against a variety of SP's as part of a plea deal, in exchange for a conditional discharge, agreeing to cooperate with a police investigation, etc., they can also subpoena the SP herself and force her to testify under oath on penalty of perjury.
The police are good at what they do. The only question really is how often they decide to work on these cases.
Again, assume that a jury will figure out whatever the people booking actually expect. Unless people booking really genuinely do not expect sex that will not be much of a defense.
1st, unless this is some really worthwhile case cops aren't going to spend the time.
2nd what exactly would a john be testifying against SP's for? Under c36 its legal for sp's to sell services.
The 3rd one has more weight, but for consideration:
3rd so they subpoena the SP that Fuji was with and ask the SP did he pay you for sexual services and the SP says yes. Fujis lawyer asks SP did you obtain Fujis sexual services for consideration (The truth is yes)
Now what?
You are both obtaining sexual services for consideration, and you are both offering.
Seems to be the only way out is if you are a john to specifically ask for consideration.
Having said all that - how did you get arrested in the firstplace?
This one doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.
1st, unless this is some really worthwhile case cops aren't going to spend the time.
2nd what exactly would a john be testifying against SP's for? Under c36 its legal for sp's to sell services.
The 3rd one has more weight, but for consideration:
3rd so they subpoena the SP that Fuji was with and ask the SP did he pay you for sexual services and the SP says yes. Fujis lawyer asks SP did you obtain Fujis sexual services for consideration (The truth is yes)
Now what?
You are both obtaining sexual services for consideration, and you are both offering.
Seems to be the only way out is if you are a john to specifically ask for consideration.
Having said all that - how did you get arrested in the firstplace?
Fuji was speaking about a situation wherein an SP offers companionship, not sex, for consideration, but an undercover cop confirms she will have sex for that same consideration with him. Therefore, the jury will not believe that the real client paid just for companionship, and will be convicted.
The SP can never 'obtain' sex for consideration since she is the provider or the offeror. This is already established by the nature of the 'companionship' service. The only question of fact is whether 'companionship' is really sex, not who is the offeror.
Your last question is valid and perhaps the most important.
Thats why I'm quitting the hobby until that poor sucker gets nailed.Don't forget gents that first one charged under this new law is making National News
Then I'll wait for the SCC challenge
There seems to be in all of these C - 36 posts attacks on Fuji by a core group of people who if they are not SPs then certainly advocate on behalf of SPs. Their collective position as I can distill it, in addition to heaping ridicule on Fuji and encouraging others to do likewise, is that the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada (remember it's not Bill C - 36 it's now the CCC) are unconstitutional and conviction of purchasers of sexual services is in any event unlikely to the point that clients (now Johns) should ignore the law. They all posit that they are compliant, their communication is compliant and they are not in violation of the law. They go on to suggest that what they are selling is companionship and not sexual services.
When Fuji points out that the amendments to the CCC criminalizes the purchase of sexual services, not the sale, because Parliament has determined all sellers of sexual services to be victims, a flurry of posts follow to criticize his "legal reasoning" and attempting to soothe everyone who reads, by ever increasing vitriol, that relax and everything will be ok. When Fuji responds with legitimate concerns on behalf of the clients who have something to lose by arrest and conviction, while the usual trio belittle him, they ultimately have no answer. They have no answer because it's going to get a lot worse for all of us for quite some time before it gets better.
Before I go on about why it was a brilliant political move to criminalize the purchase of sex (it has to do with the last time hard core social conservatives, hard core feminists and soccer moms agreed with anything), the doubters and the hopeful have suggested that the law will be struck down. I'm not so sure. Parliament has the authority to pass criminal law, it has the right to invoke laws that reduce harm, and if all providers of sexual services are victims, if this law reduces demand, it is at first blush, constitutional. That it is not perfect does not matter. There is no constitutional right to purchase sexual services.
The only possible basis upon which parts of the CCC might be determined to be unconstitutional is based on reasoning that the factors that were in play in Bedford are the same with these amendments. There is a slim chance in this regard. What is truly unfortunate is that in an ever increasingly socially liberal Canada, these laws are passed which repress a group of generally silent men. Johns are the new fags.
Of course the industry cannot afford to lose us, the wealthy, clean, safe and articulate client. The entire industry is scared to death about a drop in demand. The irony is that we are the guys who actually will pay $250 to speak with a provider and not have sex. And we are scared and ready to go. That of course folks is the point of the law.
We will be replaced by a less desireable group of customers. Of course the industry wants you to believe everything is ok. Will there be arrests. Of course there will. When and where is more problematic. The fixed locations established SPs incall locations and MPs will be the first targets (easy low hanging fruit). If course those are the core advertisers of this board and why the panic is palpable.
The reality is not based on hope for the best and faith. If I wanted that I would be in church. In the hard light of day when you are sitting in a police interrogation room while police investigate criminal activity, you will wonder what happened. Which gets me to my final point.
While none of us believe that this law is positive (because the good clients are not involved in anything other that a respite from an otherwise difficult world and that relatively younger women are exchanging time with otherwise older men for amounts that for us are inconsequential but not for the women we are with), we are puzzled by the sledgehammer approach.
Don't be puzzled. Because as set out above, while this law at all of our expense, it brings together the groups of otherwise disparate constituencies, the hard core conservatives who can cheer about something (since they can't outlaw abortion, gay sex, swingers or adulterers), hard core feminists (who cheered when the reviled Stephen Harper called all female sex workers victims), and our wives who know what we do but hate that we have an outlet since she can't use sex as a weapon against you. (I'm fortunately and happily divorced)
At worst this law is vote neutral for the government. It would not have been passed otherwise. And the PM loves to trumpet the new law. It doesn't make the news but for any of you who see our PM in person, he has not hesitated to triumph the protection of women with this new law. Read his speeches on line if the are posted.
So there you have it from a guy who was saved during difficult times in my life by being able to see escorts without the risk of criminal arrest and record. I wish this law weren't so but it is. I have nothing but love for everyone I met in this business and all the people on this board (mostly but not all - and those guys are mainly in the political section). Guys be careful out there (to use the words of the venerable Phil Esterhaus for those of you old enough to remember). I have seen trends in my life and know that trends cannot be fought. I have seen the halcyon days and they were good.
JTO
When Fuji points out that the amendments to the CCC criminalizes the purchase of sexual services, not the sale, because Parliament has determined all sellers of sexual services to be victims, a flurry of posts follow to criticize his "legal reasoning" and attempting to soothe everyone who reads, by ever increasing vitriol, that relax and everything will be ok. When Fuji responds with legitimate concerns on behalf of the clients who have something to lose by arrest and conviction, while the usual trio belittle him, they ultimately have no answer. They have no answer because it's going to get a lot worse for all of us for quite some time before it gets better.
Before I go on about why it was a brilliant political move to criminalize the purchase of sex (it has to do with the last time hard core social conservatives, hard core feminists and soccer moms agreed with anything), the doubters and the hopeful have suggested that the law will be struck down. I'm not so sure. Parliament has the authority to pass criminal law, it has the right to invoke laws that reduce harm, and if all providers of sexual services are victims, if this law reduces demand, it is at first blush, constitutional. That it is not perfect does not matter. There is no constitutional right to purchase sexual services.
The only possible basis upon which parts of the CCC might be determined to be unconstitutional is based on reasoning that the factors that were in play in Bedford are the same with these amendments. There is a slim chance in this regard. What is truly unfortunate is that in an ever increasingly socially liberal Canada, these laws are passed which repress a group of generally silent men. Johns are the new fags.
Of course the industry cannot afford to lose us, the wealthy, clean, safe and articulate client. The entire industry is scared to death about a drop in demand. The irony is that we are the guys who actually will pay $250 to speak with a provider and not have sex. And we are scared and ready to go. That of course folks is the point of the law.
We will be replaced by a less desireable group of customers. Of course the industry wants you to believe everything is ok. Will there be arrests. Of course there will. When and where is more problematic. The fixed locations established SPs incall locations and MPs will be the first targets (easy low hanging fruit). If course those are the core advertisers of this board and why the panic is palpable.
The reality is not based on hope for the best and faith. If I wanted that I would be in church. In the hard light of day when you are sitting in a police interrogation room while police investigate criminal activity, you will wonder what happened. Which gets me to my final point.
While none of us believe that this law is positive (because the good clients are not involved in anything other that a respite from an otherwise difficult world and that relatively younger women are exchanging time with otherwise older men for amounts that for us are inconsequential but not for the women we are with), we are puzzled by the sledgehammer approach.
Don't be puzzled. Because as set out above, while this law at all of our expense, it brings together the groups of otherwise disparate constituencies, the hard core conservatives who can cheer about something (since they can't outlaw abortion, gay sex, swingers or adulterers), hard core feminists (who cheered when the reviled Stephen Harper called all female sex workers victims), and our wives who know what we do but hate that we have an outlet since she can't use sex as a weapon against you. (I'm fortunately and happily divorced)
At worst this law is vote neutral for the government. It would not have been passed otherwise. And the PM loves to trumpet the new law. It doesn't make the news but for any of you who see our PM in person, he has not hesitated to triumph the protection of women with this new law. Read his speeches on line if the are posted.
So there you have it from a guy who was saved during difficult times in my life by being able to see escorts without the risk of criminal arrest and record. I wish this law weren't so but it is. I have nothing but love for everyone I met in this business and all the people on this board (mostly but not all - and those guys are mainly in the political section). Guys be careful out there (to use the words of the venerable Phil Esterhaus for those of you old enough to remember). I have seen trends in my life and know that trends cannot be fought. I have seen the halcyon days and they were good.
JTO
Damn good post JTO. While not quitting I'm damn well taking this law seriously and changing/curtailing things for awhile.
Sorry to the providers and facilitators but that's the way it has to be.
Sorry to the providers and facilitators but that's the way it has to be.
Well, sex can be free and there is no law against that. If a few of my friends tell me they went out with a girl and had sex, that doesn't mean she will also have sex with me if I take her out on a similar date. Same with a paid companion. It doesn't prove anything if she has sex with other clients....a situation wherein an SP offers companionship, not sex, for consideration, but an undercover cop confirms she will have sex for that same consideration with him. Therefore, the jury will not believe that the real client paid just for companionship, and will be convicted.
First off, it would HAVE to eliminate demand. Just hoping or speculation that it could reduce it won't have much weight in court. Also, reducing demand is just a mean to a goal; which is to reduce supply. If targeting demand doesn't help exit, doesn't deter entry, and puts victims in more danger, it is clearly problematic from a constitutional standpoint. These effect are already predictable based on current research although it might take time to collect solid evidence for a challenge.Parliament has the authority to pass criminal law, it has the right to invoke laws that reduce harm, and if all providers of sexual services are victims, if this law reduces demand, it is at first blush, constitutional.
Assuming that your analysis is sound (of which I'm not sure), the next logical step is to ban the whole thing outright.First off, it would HAVE to eliminate demand. Just hoping or speculation that it could reduce it won't have much weight in court. Also, reducing demand is just a mean to a goal; which is to reduce supply. If targeting demand doesn't help exit, doesn't deter entry, and puts victims in more danger, it is clearly problematic from a constitutional standpoint. These effect are already predictable based on current research although it might take time to collect solid evidence for a challenge.
I am not going to assume anything.For example, they can get the testimony of another client who had purchased sex, and use that in combination with other circumstantial evidence to persuade a jury that the $250 was not really for pleasant conversation.
The other client will be providing testimony against a variety of SP's as part of a plea deal, in exchange for a conditional discharge, agreeing to cooperate with a police investigation, etc., they can also subpoena the SP herself and force her to testify under oath on penalty of perjury.
The police are good at what they do. The only question really is how often they decide to work on these cases.
Again, assume that a jury will figure out whatever the people booking actually expect. Unless people booking really genuinely do not expect sex that will not be much of a defense.
Please direct yourself to this post and follow through. Because you keep spouting off about this shit but I think you assume too much.
http://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...riminals-now&p=5089591&viewfull=1#post5089591
Some facts to back up your shit would be nice.
LMAO - testimony from another man???? Like escorts ONLY have sex with clients. None have sex for free outside of work???? Give me a break.
Now see this is nice. It is factual.Fuji, many SPs in the States offer companionship for a fee. Whatever else happens is between two consenting adults. The Technical Paper by our own government cites a case in which natural affinity was a defense against 'sexual services for consideration', even when it was advertised!
Another case held that the phrase “sexual services for consideration” is not intended to apply to consensual actions between those having an affinity towards one another.[30]
[30] R v Leo, [1993] 147 AR 161 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), appeal against conviction dismissed by Alta. CA and SCC, without reasons.
Why didn't they do that directly then? It would be terrible politic on the international level to treat ''traffic victims'' as criminals. There is no experts that would support that in committee and they couldn't even make up a circus like they did with C-36. The only country in the western world that criminalizes the sale is the US. Their law is 100 years old and their current rhetoric and enforcement is also shifting toward demand-targeting to keep in tune with international mentality.Assuming that your analysis is sound (of which I'm not sure), the next logical step is to ban the whole thing outright.
There seems to be in all of these C - 36 posts attacks on Fuji by a core group of people who if they are not SPs then certainly advocate on behalf of SPs. Their collective position as I can distill it, in addition to heaping ridicule on Fuji and encouraging others to do likewise, is that the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada (remember it's not Bill C - 36 it's now the CCC) are unconstitutional and conviction of purchasers of sexual services is in any event unlikely to the point that clients (now Johns) should ignore the law. They all posit that they are compliant, their communication is compliant and they are not in violation of the law. They go on to suggest that what they are selling is companionship and not sexual services.
NO ONE is saying that at all. Not one bit. What people are saying is that all the ways that Fuji has thought up are not all plausible ways of getting arrested under the new law. He is spreading fear for nothing more then entertainment value for his own person reasons. If you think he really cares about any of you, you are sadly mistaken. Fuji only cares about Fuji. He hates women and I think just people in general if I am being honest and wants to scare people into not seeing SPs anymore. He is basically the poster boy for Mackay here on TERB in a more indirect way.
What we are saying is - Yes it is now criminal. If that is too much risk for you, then by all means quit. Please do so with some dignity, and no whiny goodbyes - but quit if you need to. IF you want to keep hobbying then we offer suggestions that will minimize the risk for you. Fuji says nothing is able to be minimized in the risk factor. Some john is going to book a known SP and walk out of the the hotel in hand cuffs, be all over the news and have his life destroyed all in this one instances
It is just like other risks. Sex comes with risks of STD. We all know this. Fuji would be the guy explaining that there is NO SAFE to have sex. ALL ways will give you an STD, so basically cut your cocks off now boys. We give ways that will reduce risk. Fuji says the sky is falling.
Fuji is pointing out that our only hope at this point is that the police continue to focus on harm reduction, rather than the approach of the American police which is looking for headlines with arrests. I heartily agree with Fuji.
Further court challenges will not help the industry. Even if Harper loses the next election, Trudeau is a "women are the priority" politician (ie. you must be pro-choice to be a Liberal MP, male Liberal MPs are suspended based on mere allegations by women) and women (other than escorts) hate prostitution.
We need to stop stirring the pot.
Ultimately, Bill C36 does immunize escorts and so that is positive. I would rather be immune too, but if Bill C36 is struck down, the next step is for parliament to make it illegal for everyone. That is the political reality.
Further court challenges will not help the industry. Even if Harper loses the next election, Trudeau is a "women are the priority" politician (ie. you must be pro-choice to be a Liberal MP, male Liberal MPs are suspended based on mere allegations by women) and women (other than escorts) hate prostitution.
We need to stop stirring the pot.
Ultimately, Bill C36 does immunize escorts and so that is positive. I would rather be immune too, but if Bill C36 is struck down, the next step is for parliament to make it illegal for everyone. That is the political reality.
