What about offences of advertising and material benefits?
Can they be arrested to leave those charges in limbo or on their record, if immune from prosecution? This would be quite a hassle.
Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.
- Thread starter Toronto`s Finest
- Start date
Can they be arrested to leave those charges in limbo or on their record, if immune from prosecution? This would be quite a hassle.
Even if you (Muse) doesn't, it doesn't mean that clients are safe from prosecution for purchasing sex. It just means that you're licensed by the city to sell it.
We are tipping her for a massage, that's all. Watch that video clip of Jack Layton.
INFO ON ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS & PRIVACY (Courtesy from a Terbite's PMs, who wishes to be anonymous)
It simply isn't conceivable, logical or even lawful that LE is going to monitor text or email traffic to see if anyone is violating this new law. As you can see by the attachment last year Canadians sent 270 million text messages a DAY!!. With that kind of volume it would be impossible for them to troll to see what messages contained information that violated the law. As we know LE departments are facing budget cuts, and barely have enough resources to investigate major crime. More importantly, under the Criminal Code protection of privacy provisions, LE require a judge's authorization to intercept communications, and they must have reasonable and probable grounds to get such an order, and the technical aspect of being able to intercept those communications. Given those factors LE won't be trolling text messages to see who just happens to be arranging to see someone. If you Google search, "can police monitor text messages" you'll see a CBC report of a Supreme Court ruling that text messages are private communications like phone calls....Cheers
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/what-powers-do-police-have-for-online-surveillance-1.1333667
The other thing is that under the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, companies like Rogers, Bell etc may not retain personal information once the original purpose for collecting it have been completed, i.e. sending it to the recipient and collecting the time, date etc for billing you according to your Plan. They have no legitimate reason and no interest to retain the "contents "of the text messages, which is the important stuff for us, only the data to track your usage. Therefore, the contents of your communication with an sp via text isn't retained and thus there's nothing for LE to find, unless you have retained it yourself on your phone. I suspect the longest would be 30 days, as noted in the Telus Court decision which reaffirmed privacy rights. Will be interesting to see how the law affects sites like this, CERB, CL, Backpage etc. as far as advertising sex.
We have freedom of speech, and privacy rights laws to protect our communications. The mere fact that someone phones, texts or even talks to an escort isn't an offence, as for example all one would have to say is that you or her called a wrong number. As well, even if you talked to a street walker or even an escort, there's no offence until you communicate sex for money. Males and females talk, text and email about sex all the time, and that's perfectly fine, just like picking up a girl in a bar and ask her if she wants to come home. That's okay as its not illegal to pick up a girl to have sex with, only when money is involved. Sites like Ashley Madison which promote attached people to have affairs wouldn't break the law, as its simply two consenting attached adults getting together for sex, or other fun times together, but not for a fee. In summary, for LE to know you called an escort who advertises, doesn't complete or make it an offence, otherwise that would mean every escort could never receive a call from any male friend, or even boyfriend who maybe she wants to just come over and fix her fence. Every call an escort or hobbyist makes or receives isn't necessarily sex business related. Likewise there's nothing wrong with me inviting a known escort over to my place, as its not illegal to know one, talk to, or simply have her as a non sex friend. Who knows maybe she might even give me a freebe which would be legal. Wiretap warrants are hard to get and judges have to be convinced they're justified. As with any new law, LE will be very selective which cases they decide to prosecute, as they don't want it to be thrown out which then sets a precedence. Anyway that's my take on it at this point. Will be interesting how it affects spas.
This article confirms what I've said, plus in 2012 there were 270 million text message sent a day in Canada, so a monumental task for LE to bother now that the highest court has said a wiretap authorization is required which is harder to get than a normal warrant. As text are only stored for 30 days that means LE would have to act very quickly to get access before it was erased
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/police-...ages-1.1213036
The Supreme Court has consistently taken a dim view of privacy violations, and in this decision re enforces previous case law. The other aspect is enforcement in theory verses reality. As we all know LE budgets and all other areas have been cut due to budget restraints, which means LE simply isn't going to spend already reduced money and resources on such a trivial "crime" of prostitution. Their focus will continue to be on serious crime and human trafficking and pimps. The fact the law exists means little, just as so many other laws go unenforced due to limited resources as they have little impact on people's day to day lives.
Last edited:
Emily has advised in another thread that their license endorsements include the Mixer, Encore, BSP, etc. I remains to be seen whether a court (not the MLS division of city of toronto) considers those services to be sex. Regardless, because of those endorsements, Muse is able to sell those services. It still doesn't mean that we're able to buy them legally (under C36).
It's an interesting distinction. Most spas (to my knowledge) do not have such endorsements. They are only permitted to sell 30/45/60 for $40/$60/$80. Door fees only. Nothing about in-room stuff. It's more interesting because, on the one hand, MPAs are independent contractors and not employees of spas. So, the spa wouldn't be offside its license if it only sold what it was licensed to sell. But, as I recall, the toronto muni code regulates both a spa and its attendants, and binds both to the same restrictions.
So again, we are back to the fervent hope that LE (including bylaws) will turn a blind eye....
Tipping her for a full body massage, erotic massage, exotic massage, wee willy walkabout. Whatever you want to call it.
An excellent and concise analysis.
From this I take that two pieces of "fieldcraft" will eliminate any realistic possibility of communications charges stemming from phone/text conversations, even those explicitly in violation of the law.
1. Do not retain any records on your local device/phone (of explicitly unlawful content like voicemail or text messages that specifically involve communication to obtain services.)
2. Do not use a phone number easily traceable to yourself, in case an SP keeps/fails to delete records from her phone.
Mere presence of an SP's number saved in your phone, or of "innocent" communications records, would not be sufficient to lay a charge or secure a conviction for communication. (Although might perhaps serve as a component of a compiled circumstantial case.)
Does anyone have some case law regarding phone search in the course of an arrest? Even an arrest ultimately found to be on a bad charge (or an arrest and release with no charge) the police can for example search your pockets and contents of bags carried and etc. In Canada, has there ever been a test case for police searching the electronic contents of a phone carried by a person under arrest without warrant?
Their service description for something like the mixer is probably very generic. Something like 3 massage attendants in succession. Their website also has equally generic wording:
Such a description really doesn't communicate any sexual service at all. In fact, if you just quoted that above description to any person who passed by, they would just think it is some kind of cool massage. I'm pretty sure if Muse sought endorsement for all the handjobs, nude body sliding, tittyfucking, and assgrabing during the Muse mixer the service wouldn't get a rubber stamp.
Agreed, which is why a licensing endorsement doesn't equate to a free pass for clients (or MPs themselves) on criminal code charges (which would be based upon the actual services sought or received).
(Mind you, if you read the backstage pass description, it's pretty specific.)
(Mind you, if you read the backstage pass description, it's pretty specific.)
No one is licensed to sell sex hun.
Who needs a blind eye? Mixers aren't sex. Or even sexual services. Its very simple. We submit our services, they stamp it for approval. No sexual services are involved at all.
Who on earth said it does??
Please stop confusing what I have said. A) I can only speak for Toronto, based on my own research & meetings w/enforcement. B) Muse's services are all registered w/the city as per licensing. C) licensing bylaws & criminal code are completely different.
D) when I said not all spas operate that way, it is in regards to the client. No $ is exchanged inside rooms. E) other spas will have to do their own homework, I won't reveal any more about what I've discovered on my own time.
I would say your entire business model is at best in a grey area. I'm not sure what your meetings with enforcement (police and or/bylaw) would entail but they can't exactly guarantee what elements they would and wouldn't enforce. Furthermore, while they seem friendly now, if the political landscape changes, telling them too much about your business model could be used as evidence in court later on. I do hope things work out for you though.
City bylaws and the criminal code are different but actually will be used together under bill C-36. You are entirely correct when you have previously said that criminal investigations against "bawdy houses" are generally resource intensive. That is why law enforcement would realistically use the bylaws to close down a body rub if they wanted to. By actually enforcing the requirement for body rubs to close at 9 (none of them do currently) and also the requirement that attendants "be properly dressed, neat and clean in his or her person...", they could shut down body rub parlours in Toronto in a hurry.
Understood, but for the case of an independent, how does the LE knows who the advertisement is really for when many use fake pictures, fake stats and fake names? Can't they decide to arrest her because they ''think'' she's pimping someone else; oops we're really sorry but you still have a record of arrest. Once again not something I think likely to happen, but just the fact that things like that can potentially happen is some concern.
This is tricky, but I think it's not exactly right. The law does not exempt people who work in the ''context of a commercial enterprise offering sexual service for consideration''. The masseuse offers sex for money, so the business offers that among other legal services. Even if the offer is informal and does not involve the manager, he is still involve in that business that offers that service. He could possible be declared innocent if he proves that he had expressly forbidden the woman to do that and that it was done without his knowledge, but I am sure he could still get arrested and charged.
I go for simple massages. Shanice gives an RMT-style, therapeutic massage.
And if asked about what your tipping for, just stick to 'massage'.
"Ultimate pleasure" and "spine-tingling gratification" are interesting phrases, but nothing that a marketing executive wouldn't use.
Frankly, when I get a hard massage of my back, buttocks quads/thighs, neck, and shoulder, that's very gratifying from a therapeutic perspective. Anything else is transitory. The deep, muscle massages are what makes me feel real good afterwards (I usually go late at night).
tegR, I've replaced the first link with a working link from the CBC. I still have to read those articles, but it is encouraging news.
I honestly don't believe that SPs will keep text messages longer than 30 days. I delete mine after a week, unless there's important info, but that you can cut and paste, if it has permanent relevance.
I would recommend that all hobbyists have frank discussions with their providers to ensure they have nothing incriminating on their smartphones. SPs don't need the heat.
I might even say that it is still seems possible for an SP to be charged for an offence of advertising and material benefits, even though not prosecutable. So DON'T keep that shit on your phone. They don't need that hassle (nor subject to intimidation tactics by police to testify against johns - which will destroy their business).
It doesn't work like that. "Not professionally dressed" is a bylaw infraction, equivalent to a parking ticket. Its the attendants ticket, not the spa. And the lowest on the scale of offenses. Its also the easiest to beat in court.
Grey area if you advertise sexual services. But we aren't licensed to do so, & I know of only 1 spa in Toronto who posts sexual services (I won't comment further on that!).
Body rub parlors are licensed to sell body rubs. That's what we do. That is not a c-36 offense.
As for 9pm close, we risk tickets for that. There is a process to how ticketing works, demerit points so to speak...and there is a current case in the courts so I cannot comment further on that topic.
I've done my homework. I didn't just have coffee with a street cop lol. My job is to ensure our business is lawful, our staff are safe, and our clients are protected. I will continue to do so. And yes, that includes as times change, police chiefs change, promotions, political changes, council, etc. That's my responsibility. And I'd like to think I'm doing a good job. I've been extremely tireless & proactive in this aspect, as well as my personal advocacy for sex workers rights as a whole. I've been quoted in the senate, called upon by enforcement to assist with planning, a resource for sex workers, and donated my personal time to rescue &councelling efforts.
No one needs to or should take my word, or anyone's word. Everyone (client, business owner, etc) needs to do their own work, research, etc. Do not trust my honest yet bias opinion. I clearly have vested interests, both professional & personal. Hence my investment to the cause.
It's a bylaw that employees sign independent contractor agreements to not sell sexual services. No commercial enterprise that sells sexual services is allowed as per c-36. Let's not get brothels &s uch confused with what we are & what we are licensed to do. Law & bylaw are totally different.
The do team up for enforcement. Bylaw relays info of potential crime to police. As they should!
The line below was deleted when I did the cut and paste.
It read: as pointed out by GPIDEAL.
That is why the line is identical to yours. Sorry about that but always like to give credit to the originator if the idea.
It read: as pointed out by GPIDEAL.
That is why the line is identical to yours. Sorry about that but always like to give credit to the originator if the idea.
Only Telus stores messages ... Bell and Rogers does not stores messages ....
and Telus only stores for 30 days ....
http://www.barrysookman.com/2013/03...e-text-messages-says-supreme-court-r-v-telus/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/27/canada-supreme-court-text-messages_n_2961046.html
