c36

[SuperCharge]

I wasn't talking about just one part of your post my dear. I was more talking about your comment on LE and how they felt. :thumb:

Oh ok. Sorry bout that then

 

[magnus666]

For clients, it's a similar reduction of choice. Why can't a man pay for professional services? Why can't a disabled person hire professional sex? Since when can a man not decide for himself what to do with his own penis or money?

OMG, I just found a tattoo at the base of my penis. It reads "Property of the Government of Canada". I'm so screwed

 

[The Searcher]

It's not about pooning. Its about the right to choose what a person does with their body! Its ironic that in abortion fights, a woman has the right to choose. Her body, her choice. But if her choice is that she wants to make her sex a profession, she no longer has the right to choose. And this government went so far as to say we cannot consent. As if we are underage drinkers or child drivers or teens trying to wed. Apparently if you fuck or suck & love it, you are demeaned to nothing more than a poor mindless victim.

For clients, it's a similar reduction of choice. Why can't a man pay for professional services? Why can't a disabled person hire professional sex? Since when can a man not decide for himself what to do with his own penis or money?

(all of this is assumed on consensual sex work! C-36 tainted the actual premise of adult prostitution with underage/non-consensual/trafficking. That is not what the original laws struck down were even about. This is in the context of adults choosing their own sexual choices, without harming anyone)

Very well said, I was miserable for a long time and now I'm so happy because I have met a wonderful girl at a MP that I see regularly, its changed my life, how is this so bad? Just makes me smh #mydickmymoney

 

[GPIDEAL]

I am painfully aware of the law.
Is the rights of a stripper infringed because the strip club is no longer a strip club. If she chose to strip as a short term profession for financial reasons, but the club generally offers more and possibly illegal service, what are her rights?

Is a MP room a private room, does the fact that the doors are not permitted to be locked mean that the presumsion of privacy is not real.

The law is here, talking about how it is a bad law at this particular point in time is a waste if breath.

Not sure if I'm taking what you wrote out of context, but the government's technical paper excludes stripping or exotic dancing (besides porno productions) as sexual services.

 

[GPIDEAL]

It's not about pooning. Its about the right to choose what a person does with their body! Its ironic that in abortion fights, a woman has the right to choose. Her body, her choice. But if her choice is that she wants to make her sex a profession, she no longer has the right to choose. And this government went so far as to say we cannot consent. As if we are underage drinkers or child drivers or teens trying to wed. Apparently if you fuck or suck & love it, you are demeaned to nothing more than a poor mindless victim.

For clients, it's a similar reduction of choice. Why can't a man pay for professional services? Why can't a disabled person hire professional sex? Since when can a man not decide for himself what to do with his own penis or money?

(all of this is assumed on consensual sex work! C-36 tainted the actual premise of adult prostitution with underage/non-consensual/trafficking. That is not what the original laws struck down were even about. This is in the context of adults choosing their own sexual choices, without harming anyone)

Here, here. Well said. :clap2:

You have made a pleading for a Section 7 constitutional challenge my dear.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Well said MPA2. When I was rebounding from a relationship a while ago, I found solace in some MPAs (regulars now). I didn't want to re-enter the dating scene and seeing MPAs was a perfect solution to complement my busy schedule. It has been such a good ride. Full flexibility. Assured results. And the girls are actually happy to see me and my money. Why the F*ck should anybody else have a say in this matter?!!! I'm happy, the girls are happy, the spa owners are happy, where is the victim here????

Well said too Gabbar. You have a legitimate reason for the intimacy you sought. The world is different now when it comes to dating, and Family Law has also changed the landscape.

(Also what Woody Allen said: Sex is the most beautiful think money can buy, or words to that effect.)

 

[GPIDEAL]

The irony is that brothels are defacto legal under Bill C-36 anyways.

Not if it's viewed as a commercial enterprise (as aptly pointed out by MPASquared - she makes some good points that they government just rephrased things).

 

[GPIDEAL]

Here's that Post 101 stuff. I underlined some salient bits I think you overlooked:

The law is what the law says, not what some technical paper that the lawmakers may or may not have read, might say—perhaps inaccurately. The law does not say sexual services are illegal, only acts of prostitution—which a service only becomes when and if it is "…provided in return for some form of consideration". The note that an act of self-masturbation can be prostitution even without interpersonal contact restates and reinforces the essential requirement, that it is an act "…for which consideration is provided". (If I recall the case, there were Quebec SCs with private booths customers rented with dancers who wouldn't touch but would allow them to masturbate. For a fee.)

Lap-dancing certainly is performed for consideration, but the case cited in the paper (R. v. Caringi, citing R. v. Mara and East, of Cheaters fame)) doesn't seem to have decided it is a sexual service, only that it exceeded "…community standards of tolerance", and thus was an 'indecent performance'—a crime. I can't say the government's technical writers stretched that point, but a judge certainly could decide otherwise, as there is no 'lap-dancing' definition or offence in C36.

The Handjobs Are Legal Defence, never existed. In the original case the judge found the Crown had failed to prove that essential element of an act of prostitution: payment/consideration for sexual service. His point was that with no proof the payment was specifically for sexual service, so there was sufficient possibility to qualify as a reasonable doubt, that the money was only for the massage and the bit of sex was a spontaneous freebie.

The Crown must still tie the consideration to the act in order to prove there was prostitution. It make take an energetic and clever advocate to keep a judge or jury from doing it for them, and jumping to lacivious conclusions but that's why we have defence attorneys, and the presumption of innocence.

Took a lot of pain and trouble for Bedford, but it worked in the end. Now it's our turn to make the authorities honest.

Well said. I did say IF that Technical Paper was accurate in its quoted cases. Seems like it's dodged with rhetoric I'm afraid.

 

[MPAsquared]

I am painfully aware of the law.
Is the rights of a stripper infringed because the strip club is no longer a strip club. If she chose to strip as a short term profession for financial reasons, but the club generally offers more and possibly illegal service, what are her rights?

Is a MP room a private room, does the fact that the doors are not permitted to be locked mean that the presumsion of privacy is not real.

The law is here, talking about how it is a bad law at this particular point in time is a waste if breath.

She can choose to work at another club that doesn't break the law. Time will tell what SC's choose to do. Given their plea in the HoC to become brothels, I'm not sure they won any fans.

Here, here. Well said. :clap2:

You have made a pleading for a Section 7 constitutional challenge my dear.

xo!

 

[MPAsquared]

You all may find this interesting.

http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/city-response-to-passing-of-bill-c-36.aspx#.VGJ5tmS4pmY.twitter

"Our response to the passing of Bill C-36

November 7 2014


The City is concerned with**the passing of Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act,**as research confirms that criminalization of sex workers puts people engaged in sex work at further risk of increased violence.
The passing of Bill C-36:
Undermines the health and safety of sex workers
Increases social exclusion and pushes sex workers to work in more isolated areas
What this decision means for the City going forward
Going forward, the collective focus needs to continue to be on the health and safety of sex workers and the communities that they live and work. The City**remains committed to this, and in October 2014, Mayor and Council adopted Vancouver’s Healthy City Strategy, which identifies 13 goals, including:
Safety and inclusion
To promote health and well-being for all
A**target to make Vancouver the safest major city in Canada by reducing crimes, including sexual assault, year-over-year
The City will continue to work in partnership with community groups and the provincial government to minimize safety risks and harms for sex workers. This includes:
Addressing all forms of exploitation and abuse
Providing opportunities for education and awareness
Enabling access to health and social service gaps
Creating transitioning opportunities for those seeking to exit**
City urged the**federal government to refer the proposed legislation to the Supreme Court
In submissions to the Federal Government, the City urged that the proposed legislation be referred to the Supreme Court to ensure its compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the spirit of the Bedford Decision: prioritizing the health, safety and dignity of those it’s declared to protect. The City also asked that there be consultation, which previously did not take place, with municipalities across the country on potential impacts.
In 2013 the City provided over $400,000 in grants to 11 community organizations to:
Promote sex worker health and safety
Address child and youth sexual exploitation"

 

[stay]

You all may find this interesting.

http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/city-response-to-passing-of-bill-c-36.aspx#.VGJ5tmS4pmY.twitter

"Our response to the passing of Bill C-36

November 7 2014


The City is concerned with**the passing of Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act,**as research confirms that criminalization of sex workers puts people engaged in sex work at further risk of increased violence.
The passing of Bill C-36:
Undermines the health and safety of sex workers
Increases social exclusion and pushes sex workers to work in more isolated areas
What this decision means for the City going forward
Going forward, the collective focus needs to continue to be on the health and safety of sex workers and the communities that they live and work. The City**remains committed to this, and in October 2014, Mayor and Council adopted Vancouver’s Healthy City Strategy, which identifies 13 goals, including:
Safety and inclusion
To promote health and well-being for all
A**target to make Vancouver the safest major city in Canada by reducing crimes, including sexual assault, year-over-year
The City will continue to work in partnership with community groups and the provincial government to minimize safety risks and harms for sex workers. This includes:
Addressing all forms of exploitation and abuse
Providing opportunities for education and awareness
Enabling access to health and social service gaps
Creating transitioning opportunities for those seeking to exit**
City urged the**federal government to refer the proposed legislation to the Supreme Court
In submissions to the Federal Government, the City urged that the proposed legislation be referred to the Supreme Court to ensure its compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the spirit of the Bedford Decision: prioritizing the health, safety and dignity of those it’s declared to protect. The City also asked that there be consultation, which previously did not take place, with municipalities across the country on potential impacts.
In 2013 the City provided over $400,000 in grants to 11 community organizations to:
Promote sex worker health and safety
Address child and youth sexual exploitation"

This is useless, the law is coming into effect in 3 weeks. Rights can only be argued in the courts. Change can also come by way of an election, but I wouldn't count on it.
What about the girls who are not interested in taking in dick, there's is no protection for them.
Back in the day guys use to buy topless and nude reverse, now they are buying VIP and up, can't imagine what service is higher than VIP.
So mixing the right of full on prostitues with other sex workers and using them to make gains for yourselves. Shameful.

I have known a MPA for over 7 years, when she retired she said to me she should have offered more, to make more money. Her choice would be for other girls to provide service within the limits of the laws.

 

[stay]

She can choose to work at another club that doesn't break the law. Time will tell what SC's choose to do. Given their plea in the HoC to become brothels, I'm not sure they won any fans.



xo!

Actually if you think of it as a worker in an industry, who feels that they are working in unsafe or performing their job contrary to standards they can report said firm and have those nasty civil servants rain down fire. So I would suggest to you that she could and should seek the authorities assistance in making her workplace a safe one.

 

[MPAsquared]

This is useless, the law is coming into effect in 3 weeks. Rights can only be argued in the courts. Change can also come by way of an election, but I wouldn't count on it.
What about the girls who are not interested in taking in dick, there's is no protection for them.
Back in the day guys use to buy topless and nude reverse, now they are buying VIP and up, can't imagine what service is higher than VIP.
So mixing the right of full on prostitues with other sex workers and using them to make gains for yourselves. Shameful.

I have known a MPA for over 7 years, when she retired she said to me she should have offered more, to make more money. Her choice would be for other girls to provide service within the limits of the laws.

What are u talking about? The city of Vancouver and Victoria have both denounced the new law. Senators, the mayors, and enforcement have all signed official statements stating they will not enforce laws that threaten the safety of its citizens. The premier of BC is expected to also release such a statement. As have Quebec, and a few other cities.

Right now, activists are trying to appeal to Premier Wynne to do the same, as she has the power to do so. Several senators are also pleaing to her to send c36 to ontario's court of appeals.

That's why I posted the city of vancouver's statement. To perhaps show that there can still be hope & silver linings.

What on earth does that have to do with penetration?? The government is not going to list specific sex acts & acronyms that are or are not ok. In Toronto for example, strip clubs can offer services that appeal to the sexual appetite (as an example of wording that constitutes "sexual services").

Who said anything about separating services or sex workers? I don't care if ur a peepshow girl, a street walker, a dancer, or a topless show girl, we are all sex workers! And all share the same need for safety & human rights!

Actually if you think of it as a worker in an industry, who feels that they are working in unsafe or performing their job contrary to standards they can report said firm and have those nasty civil servants rain down fire. So I would suggest to you that she could and should seek the authorities assistance in making her workplace a safe one.

Sure! She can go to the cops or MLS. I never said she can't. But just as there are fs spas & non-fs spas...there are fs sc's & non-fs sc's. she can easily go work somewhere those extras aren't tolerated.

 

[DigitallyYours]

Maybe BC will send the law to the BCCA for review. Two major cities denounce the law. Liberal majority province. Province hates Harper (pipeline). It's the province where the Pickton murders took place.

 

[MrByrson]

MPASqauared, since you are the most active of the owners on this thread let me ask you something and please enlighten me.

Before this law, was it illegal to get a hand job at your spa? If a cop walked in and saw your girl giving me a hand job while naked, would that be against the law?

After this law, would a hand job be legal?

If the hand job would be deemed illegal, what good is a body rub (lol!) ? Can your girls for money still strip naked and give me a body slide but no hand job?

What is the cruz of the matter here? If I jerk off using my own hand, not illegal. If a girl I paid at your spa does it, then illegal?

 

[Gabbar]

You all may find this interesting.

http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/city-response-to-passing-of-bill-c-36.aspx#.VGJ5tmS4pmY.twitter

"Our response to the passing of Bill C-36

November 7 2014


The City is concerned with**the passing of Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act,**as research confirms that criminalization of sex workers puts people engaged in sex work at further risk of increased violence.
The passing of Bill C-36:
Undermines the health and safety of sex workers
Increases social exclusion and pushes sex workers to work in more isolated areas
What this decision means for the City going forward
Going forward, the collective focus needs to continue to be on the health and safety of sex workers and the communities that they live and work. The City**remains committed to this, and in October 2014, Mayor and Council adopted Vancouver’s Healthy City Strategy, which identifies 13 goals, including:
Safety and inclusion
To promote health and well-being for all
A**target to make Vancouver the safest major city in Canada by reducing crimes, including sexual assault, year-over-year
The City will continue to work in partnership with community groups and the provincial government to minimize safety risks and harms for sex workers. This includes:
Addressing all forms of exploitation and abuse
Providing opportunities for education and awareness
Enabling access to health and social service gaps
Creating transitioning opportunities for those seeking to exit**
City urged the**federal government to refer the proposed legislation to the Supreme Court
In submissions to the Federal Government, the City urged that the proposed legislation be referred to the Supreme Court to ensure its compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the spirit of the Bedford Decision: prioritizing the health, safety and dignity of those it’s declared to protect. The City also asked that there be consultation, which previously did not take place, with municipalities across the country on potential impacts.
In 2013 the City provided over $400,000 in grants to 11 community organizations to:
Promote sex worker health and safety
Address child and youth sexual exploitation"

This is indeed great news!! If cities and provinces are unsure of the merits of a new law.....wow!! beginning to get my libido back!!

 

[MPAsquared]

MPASqauared, since you are the most active of the owners on this thread let me ask you something and please enlighten me.

Before this law, was it illegal to get a hand job at your spa? If a cop walked in and saw your girl giving me a hand job while naked, would that be against the law?

After this law, would a hand job be legal?

If the hand job would be deemed illegal, what good is a body rub (lol!) ? Can your girls for money still strip naked and give me a body slide but no hand job?

What is the cruz of the matter here? If I jerk off using my own hand, not illegal. If a girl I paid at your spa does it, then illegal?

Hmm, straight shooter aren't ya? I like ur style!

Toronto has the tightest of bylaws (compared to Pickering, Brampton, etc). Nudity is not permitted via licensing. Its a small ticket-able offense for the attendant. (similar to a parking ticket).

Handjobs are undefined/grey area. Our bylaw states a full body massage can be performed. Massaging, manipulating, stimulating. By any means. Pretty vague stuff eh?

In Toronto, we are not permitted to post rates for topless, nude, etc. That is both pre & post c36.

If cops walk into a room and she's nekkid, they can choose to issue a ticket for "not professionally dressed". It does not matter if it's mid-handjob, blow-job, naked head spinning, or fucking a monkey. There is no "handjob" ticket. No "blowjob" ticket. Etc.

Post-c36, let's say the same situation happens.... walking in on an act does not constitute proof of prostitution (which is defined as exchange of sexual services for consideration, ie:money).

Licensed body rub parlors sell body rubs. That's not up for debate, nor is it changing.

I can't speak for other areas of the GTA, as I have not researched or met with their powers that be.

 

[jdirector]

If i were a politician with a new council elected, I would attack this sector. No city govt really needs this money, it is no more relevant to a city's revenue stream than Rob Fords tumour is to that fat bastards overall health.

The barriers of entry are too low. I would get together with all GTA councils and set the license for an MPA at $5000.00. As it is now, for $150 and new bra and panties you can be jerking guys off in no time. That is pathetic. And I would be charging the spa owners through the roof. Poor Alex at AGS.

With the proper barriers to entry in place you wouldn't need to waste money on LE and by law enforcement. I have seen too many young women have their soles deadened in this industry.

This issue is not enforcement, it is barriers to entry and that is easily fixed.

 

[bobcat40]

If i were a politician with a new council elected, I would attack this sector. No city govt really needs this money, it is no more relevant to a city's revenue stream than Rob Fords tumour is to that fat bastards overall health.

The barriers of entry are too low. I would get together with all GTA councils and set the license for an MPA at $5000.00. As it is now, for $150 and new bra and panties you can be jerking guys off in no time. That is pathetic. And I would be charging the spa owners through the roof. Poor Alex at AGS.

With the proper barriers to entry in place you wouldn't need to waste money on LE and by law enforcement. I have seen too many young women have their soles deadened in this industry.

This issue is not enforcement, it is barriers to entry and that is easily fixed.

Um...no? By law the government cannot charge more for a class of license than the actually cost of the administration for that license.

 

[MPAsquared]

If i were a politician with a new council elected, I would attack this sector. No city govt really needs this money, it is no more relevant to a city's revenue stream than Rob Fords tumour is to that fat bastards overall health.

The barriers of entry are too low. I would get together with all GTA councils and set the license for an MPA at $5000.00. As it is now, for $150 and new bra and panties you can be jerking guys off in no time. That is pathetic. And I would be charging the spa owners through the roof. Poor Alex at AGS.

With the proper barriers to entry in place you wouldn't need to waste money on LE and by law enforcement. I have seen too many young women have their soles deadened in this industry.

This issue is not enforcement, it is barriers to entry and that is easily fixed.

Huh? In Toronto, spas pay $12,000 annually for their license. Attendants licenses are $500 each. There are 25 body rub parlors in Toronto, that's $300,000 from bodyrub parlor renewals. Each spa has anywhere from 20-100+ girls, that's a low estimate of $625,000 from attendant licenses. Toronto cannot afford to lose $1million+ dollars.

Then there are holistic's...500+ holistic spas @ $1200/yr, so there is another $600,000. then attendants @$350/each... about 10-30 girls per spa....so low end that's $1.75million more.

Then strip clubs.

There are no barriers of entry allowed in Toronto body rub parlors.