Opinions, Please.

[Gingerbeard]

We're dealing with [mostly] two human beings here. If both can agree to be a bit more flexible, we'll be fine.

Ladies, allow men to bail before any action if he learns when he arrives that his favorite service isn't offered. Also encourage direct conversation after face-to-face meeting. Example:I'm Candy, would you like a BBBJ? Anything else?

Gents: don't demand too much info before meeting. Any woman posting an inviting picture of herself in a thong along with phone number is an SP.

 

[AmberRose]

I may be wrong here, but it would seem like a dangerous idea for both the clients and SP's to discuss any form of sexual services before money is paid. Both parties could be busted if either one is a LE.

I feel like with the new law coming in, calling to book will be a much better option. There's no trail, and anyone can deny a conversation that took place or say someone called for you if asked.

But again, and maybe I'm wrong, the clients should be safe enough continuing in the way they were before, just be extra careful who you choose to pursue.

 

[Vs_81]

Some 15 years ago when I visited an sp in Toronto before any exchange of money she asked me to touch her boobs, I asked why and she said, "so I know your are not a cop and you know I am not a cop", this practice stopped after the change in LE's attitude towards the trade and we became more relaxed, I think we may have to go back to that model. If all SPs agree to this practice, as soon as you enter the room and this thing isn't happening (i.e. She is not asking to touch her boobs) you know she is a cop and you return without any exchange of money. On the other hand if the guy is refusing to do that the SP can realize that he might be a cop. You can tell the girl about this ritual during texting or phone call so you are sure that she knows about it.

If all SPs agree to this practice we don't have to be worried about and undercover police pretending to be escort or John.

Another thing is if the girl is showing her face in the ad and she turns out to be same girl when she opens the door you can be almost sure that she isn't a cop. Otherwise just leave the room.

 

[Willow Samoan]

Peachy can you pm me with contact info. Been hard to get back in touch with you lately and I tried emailing you....

It's actually really easy to contact me. My email address is on my website. You can find that on my ads in the Ottawa advertising section. If you want to book an appointment, I require the day you are interested in, the time you are interested in and your number. If I don't these three pieces of information, I'm sorry to say I ignore emails. I also ignore emails with people trying to book outside of the schedule I have placed both on my ads and website. I have the information on how to contact me on my website, usually my ads, and I have even set up my auto-reply to explain this.

I don't advertise my phone number unless I'm taking last minute appointments and I have been lucky that I have been booked in advance. When I'm taking last minute appointments, I add my number to my ads and remove it at the end of my working day. I also don't give out my number until I have the contact information I need: the day you want, the time you want, and your phone number. I'm sorry if I have been booked and our schedules didn't match. If I'm booked I try to give an alternative day(s) I could be available.

I'm a really busy girl and this contact system helps me maintain my interested clients, while weeding out people who want to waste my time.

I don't mind greeting/emails to say hello and polite questions about my service. With these type of emails, I don't require the day you want, the time you want, or your number.

Sometimes, emails can accidentally get deleted. If this has happened, I'm so so sorry.

I'm happy you brought this up as some people find the auto-reply intimidating because it's all business. I have tried to make it easer to understand; as what I need to book an appointment is in as point form as possible. Once I have the initial information I need: day, time and phone number. I'm friendly, approachable and very accommodating.

Thanks for pointing this out, but this topic would have been better as it's own thread.

 

[TheRiddlerMan]

The main difference with this law is that purchasing sexual services is outright illegal. With the old system it was everything surrounding that act, but now regardless of how it was arranged you're committing a crime by paying for sex. Given that fact, having a means of contact that is less traceable will be key. Mobile apps which automatically delete records, etc.

I also don't think we should rely on the old "they just care about the streetwalkers" line. With Backpage it's so easy for anyone to post a basic ad, I'm sure some work corners and post there (or their pimps do). LE is aware of the online sites and I'm sure will be targeting them where the pickings are juicy. They don't have to do much to put the fear of God into online "hobbyists". Word will spread fast if anything happens.

 

[Willow Samoan]

Here's a great thread going on here on terb. All the ladies on the this thread have been really helpful in explaining their understanding of things.

http://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?503824-new-advertising-rules-ALL-OF-US-need-this-info!!!

 

[OutForFun]

I think there is an overreaction on the part of ladies that is based out of a fundamental misunderstanding.

-it is illegal for providers to advertise sexual services
-it is however completely legal for providers to discuss privately (in-person, phone, email, text), provide and be paid for sexual services
-it is illegal for clients to both purchase or discuss in any manner the purchase of sexual services

Therefor if I was a lady, I would

-stop advertising sexual services and instead advertise time for money in all public facing advertising
-if a client asked my by email, text or phone about specific services, I would tell them that discussing such issues is illegal for clients and ask if they still want to ask the questions
-if they do accept the risk and ask again, I would answer, it is them knowingly taking on the risk, if the communication is somehow intercepted they are the ones in danger of being charged, not the provider

Remember, up to this new law, ladies took on certain risks by providing in-calls. The new law simply changes who is taking on the risk.

I believe many clients would be willing to accept this risk for the following reasons:

-interception of phone calls is extremely, extremely unlikely - it requires a warrant and is very time-consuming to LE
-interception of emails and texts is possible but still a lot of work for LE to trace them back to the originator, for example texts can can be coming from a burner phone paid cash, emails are from out of country providers such as GMail and tracking the source IP of a sender of a specific email is possible but requires asking GMail for this information and building a case is extremely time-consuming for the marginal prosecution that would follow

Thus I think any SP that won't answer specific questions to gents who agree to take on the risks is shooting themselves in the foot. I think the level of hobby participation will drop if gents don't know what they are going to be getting.

 

[Vs_81]

I think there is an overreaction on the part of ladies that is based out of a fundamental misunderstanding.

-it is illegal for providers to advertise sexual services
-it is however completely legal for providers to discuss privately (in-person, phone, email, text), provide and be paid for sexual services
-it is illegal for clients to both purchase or discuss in any manner the purchase of sexual services

Therefor if I was a lady, I would

-stop advertising sexual services and instead advertise time for money in all public facing advertising
-if a client asked my by email, text or phone about specific services, I would tell them that discussing such issues is illegal for clients and ask if they still want to ask the questions
-if they do accept the risk and ask again, I would answer, it is them knowingly taking on the risk, if the communication is somehow intercepted they are the ones in danger of being charged, not the provider

Remember, up to this new law, ladies took on certain risks by providing in-calls. The new law simply changes who is taking on the risk.

I believe many clients would be willing to accept this risk for the following reasons:

-interception of phone calls is extremely, extremely unlikely - it requires a warrant and is very time-consuming to LE
-interception of emails and texts is possible but still a lot of work for LE to trace them back to the originator, for example texts can can be coming from a burner phone paid cash, emails are from out of country providers such as GMail and tracking the source IP of a sender of a specific email is possible but requires asking GMail for this information and building a case is extremely time-consuming for the marginal prosecution that would follow

Thus I think any SP that won't answer specific questions to gents who agree to take on the risks is shooting themselves in the foot. I think the level of hobby participation will drop if gents don't know what they are going to be getting.

Very well written, good job OutForFun. And ladies and gents please don't blow it out of proportion, south of the border whole escorting scene is illegal and just look at the backpage ads and how many johns and escorts police go after just for consensual sex and you will know how LE will behave in Canada. LE don't have time, money and even desire to go after adults who do consensual sex as long as there is no real crime accompanied. So happy escorting and happy hobbying, being little vigilant in the beginning doesn't hurt. On a side note I would be using latest smartphones that comes with encryption and use texting software like pinger or textplus and then I will take the risk of discussing sexual services with the ladies, I won't be in trouble unless the lady will provide a copy of those texts to LE which is impossible cause the minute she does that she would be out of business because of the boards like this. In case if the client turns out to be a rapist or violent the SPs can go to police without worrying about being charge for escorting (which is a good thing, we don't want anybody be raped or violated).

 

[Ryan1967]

Remember, up to this new law, ladies took on certain risks by providing in-calls. The new law simply changes who is taking on the risk.

Excellent points OFF, small correction though on the quoted part, under the old regime both parties were technically at risk during incalls. The provider was at risk for keeping a bawdy house and the client was at risk for being "found in" a bawdy house. Agree that with the new law I think you have to actually pay for sexual services (or communicate about purchasing them) in order to be charged. Found in is no longer an offence as far as I can tell...neither is keeping a bawdy house.

 

[Vs_81]

Excellent points OFF, small correction though on the quoted part, under the old regime both parties were technically at risk during incalls. The provider was at risk for keeping a bawdy house and the client was at risk for being "found in" a bawdy house. Agree that with the new law I think you have to actually pay for sexual services (or communicate about purchasing them) in order to be charged. Found in is no longer an offence as far as I can tell...neither is keeping a bawdy house.

You are correct, in old regime for incalls they didn't need escort to be on their side to charge both of escort and client cause "found in bawdy house" clause, now they cannot charge the escort at all and they can charge a client only if they can prove "paid for sex" or "communication for sex", these two things cannot be proved unless the escort admits it (specially when the communication is not recorded and texting is encrypted). So as long as escort doesn't want you to be charged they have no means to charge you anymore (because of the absence of found in bawdy house clause). In old regime outcall was completely legal in new regime both outcalls and incalls legally fall in the same category.

 

[OutForFun]

Yes, I did forget to mention that guys could be charged as a 'found-in'. Thanks for pointing that out.

In my opinion the police are not going to be 'bugging rooms', or going into rooms where real escorts are conduction business as this again is simply too much work. Going in after the fact would be impossible to prove if the escort didn't co-operate. LE knows this and thus won't bother.

All I expect in terms of enforcement is continued enforcement of street workers and the occasional sting operation where LE posts on BP and the hobbyists go without first doing any confirmation that the lady is a real escort. This is how it's done in the US and likely to be done here. These will be easy to avoid. To re-iterate my earlier point I simply can't see LE going after gents discussing the purchase of sex through electronic means or on the phone. These are just too much work and even then they hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Just say, 'yeah, I left my cell phone in the washroom at work accidently for a couple of hours over that timeframe, I guess someone pranked me'.

The main use of the law against guys discussing purchase of sex is designed as the tool for LE to enforce street level prostitution.

 

[Vs_81]

Yes, I did forget to mention that guys could be charged as a '

As far as I know the new law doesn't have "found in bawdy house" and "living on the avails of" provisions.

 

[Vs_81]

Correct me if I am wrong but what I concluded from the discussion on this thread is:

Escorts cannot be charged as long as they are not selling their services close to a school or daycare etc. etc. and as long as they are advertising for themselves and they are not putting sexual services like bbbj or daty in their ads.

Client cannot be charged as long as the escort herself doesn't turn against him and acknowledges that he paid for sex or communicated for sexual services AND as long as LE are not monitoring the communication or room itself for any other reason (human trafficking etc. etc.).

So overall it doesn't seem as bad as we initially thought. Happy escorting and happy hobbying.

 

[GPIDEAL]

What I'm not sure of is: if it is in fact illegal to sell sexual services (the wording of this part of the law is confusing to me). ​

Bill C-36 has no provision against the sale of sexual services by an SP.

It criminalizes everyone who OBTAINS sexual services for consideration, or communicates for that purpose (Section 286.1).

Therefore, this can only apply to customers or johns.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Correct me if I am wrong but what I concluded from the discussion on this thread is:

Escorts cannot be charged as long as they are not selling their services close to a school or daycare etc. etc. and as long as they are advertising for themselves and they are not putting sexual services like bbbj or daty in their ads.

Client cannot be charged as long as the escort herself doesn't turn against him and acknowledges that he paid for sex or communicated for sexual services AND as long as LE are not monitoring the communication or room itself for any other reason (human trafficking etc. etc.).

So overall it doesn't seem as bad as we initially thought. Happy escorting and happy hobbying.

Escorts would commit an offence if they communicate near children, and have no immunity for that.

When it comes to advertising, the language of C-36 is tricky.

EVERYONE who advertises the sale of sexual services for consideration is committing an offence under Section 286.4 ('everyone' supposedly includes prostitutes). However, Section 286.5 immunizes prostitutes from prosecution for the latter offence if they sell their own sexual services.

So a sex worker CAN use acronyms like BBBJ (cuz immune from prosecution for selling their own sexual services for consideration)*, however, they may draw attention from LE who are looking for customers that pay for play (how can a john who gets caught argue he was only there for companionship?)

Furthermore, and I haven't received a specific answer for this, if 286.5 grants immunity for prosecution, does that mean that an SP who commits the advertising offence under 286.4 (or similarly worded material benefit offence under 286.2) be ARRESTED or threatened with arrest (in exchange for information), even though she can't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (no trial)?

Not having a conviction is great, but having an arrest on your record that hasn't been expunged is not great, and can cause problems with travel to the USA or future employment prospects.

I'm wondering if the immunity provisions will prevent cops from arresting SPs too, because the charge can't stick or go anywhere. If they do arrest to harass or gain leverage, that would be quite the hassle and unfair.


*SPs may be barred from using explicit language or acronyms by an advertising venue, but if it's their own website that is hosted outside of Canada, I believe they can do so as before. However, it may concern their customers who respond to such illicit ads.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I think there is an overreaction on the part of ladies that is based out of a fundamental misunderstanding.

-it is illegal for providers to advertise sexual services
-it is however completely legal for providers to discuss privately (in-person, phone, email, text), provide and be paid for sexual services
-it is illegal for clients to both purchase or discuss in any manner the purchase of sexual services

Therefor if I was a lady, I would

-stop advertising sexual services and instead advertise time for money in all public facing advertising
-if a client asked my by email, text or phone about specific services, I would tell them that discussing such issues is illegal for clients and ask if they still want to ask the questions
-if they do accept the risk and ask again, I would answer, it is them knowingly taking on the risk, if the communication is somehow intercepted they are the ones in danger of being charged, not the provider

Remember, up to this new law, ladies took on certain risks by providing in-calls. The new law simply changes who is taking on the risk.

I believe many clients would be willing to accept this risk for the following reasons:

-interception of phone calls is extremely, extremely unlikely - it requires a warrant and is very time-consuming to LE
-interception of emails and texts is possible but still a lot of work for LE to trace them back to the originator, for example texts can can be coming from a burner phone paid cash, emails are from out of country providers such as GMail and tracking the source IP of a sender of a specific email is possible but requires asking GMail for this information and building a case is extremely time-consuming for the marginal prosecution that would follow

Thus I think any SP that won't answer specific questions to gents who agree to take on the risks is shooting themselves in the foot. I think the level of hobby participation will drop if gents don't know what they are going to be getting.

Not quite right.

At the end of the day, providers have immunity against prostitution of the advertising offence if the ad concerns selling their OWN sexual services. [Section 286.5 (1) (b)]

As I've explained in my post # 36, they would be committing the advertising offence (286.4) in the first place, but ultimately can't go to jail for that due to the separate immunity provision. HOWEVER, there's an implication that they can still be arrested or charged

 

[OutForFun]

Not quite right.

At the end of the day, providers have immunity against prostitution of the advertising offence if the ad concerns selling their OWN sexual services. [Section 286.5 (1) (b)]

As I've explained in my post # 36, they would be committing the advertising offence (286.4) in the first place, but ultimately can't go to jail for that due to the separate immunity provision. HOWEVER, there's an implication that they can still be arrested or charged

Yep, an absolutely fucked-up lazy piece of shit legislation. Peter Mckay should be ashamed not because just of its content, but because of how poorly it is worded. I can only imagine the eventual wording of some of the judicial decisions.

 

[Vs_81]

Escorts would commit an offence if they communicate near children, and have no immunity for that.

When it comes to advertising, the language of C-36 is tricky.

EVERYONE who advertises the sale of sexual services for consideration is committing an offence under Section 286.4 ('everyone' supposedly includes prostitutes). However, Section 286.5 immunizes prostitutes from prosecution for the latter offence if they sell their own sexual services.

So a sex worker CAN use acronyms like BBBJ (cuz immune from prosecution for selling their own sexual services for consideration)*, however, they may draw attention from LE who are looking for customers that pay for play (how can a john who gets caught argue he was only there for companionship?)

Furthermore, and I haven't received a specific answer for this, if 286.5 grants immunity for prosecution, does that mean that an SP who commits the advertising offence under 286.4 (or similarly worded material benefit offence under 286.2) be ARRESTED or threatened with arrest (in exchange for information), even though she can't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (no trial)?

Not having a conviction is great, but having an arrest on your record that hasn't been expunged is not great, and can cause problems with travel to the USA or future employment prospects.

I'm wondering if the immunity provisions will prevent cops from arresting SPs too, because the charge can't stick or go anywhere. If they do arrest to harass or gain leverage, that would be quite the hassle and unfair.


*SPs may be barred from using explicit language or acronyms by an advertising venue, but if it's their own website that is hosted outside of Canada, I believe they can do so as before. However, it may concern their customers who respond to such illicit ads.

Thanks! GPIDEAL. What you said reassures me that out of all those convoluted words and clauses and provisions and gimmicks in this new law the message for me to take was my four liner conclusion and if we remember that we would be out of trouble.

 

[Vs_81]

Thanks! GPIDEAL. What you said reassures me that out of all those convoluted words and clauses and provisions and gimmicks in this new law the message for me to take was my four liner conclusion and if we remember that we would be out of trouble.

This was my conclusion I am pasting it here so you don't have to dig back to find it:

Correct me if I am wrong but what I concluded from the discussion on this thread is:

Escorts cannot be charged as long as they are not selling their services close to a school or daycare etc. etc. and as long as they are advertising for themselves and they are not putting sexual services like bbbj or daty in their ads.

Client cannot be charged as long as the escort herself doesn't turn against him and acknowledges that he paid for sex or communicated for sexual services AND as long as LE are not monitoring the communication or room itself for any other reason (human trafficking etc. etc.).

So overall it doesn't seem as bad as we initially thought. Happy escorting and happy hobbying.

 

[GPIDEAL]

This was my conclusion I am pasting it here so you don't have to dig back to find it:

Correct me if I am wrong but what I concluded from the discussion on this thread is:

Escorts cannot be charged as long as they are not selling their services close to a school or daycare etc. etc. and as long as they are advertising for themselves and they are not putting sexual services like bbbj or daty in their ads.

Client cannot be charged as long as the escort herself doesn't turn against him and acknowledges that he paid for sex or communicated for sexual services AND as long as LE are not monitoring the communication or room itself for any other reason (human trafficking etc. etc.).

So overall it doesn't seem as bad as we initially thought. Happy escorting and happy hobbying.

The one possible change in your statement, is that SPs MAY be arrested/charged for advertising for explicit ads/benefiting, but can't be prosecuted or go to jail due to a separate immunity provision (the offence provisions don't exclude sex workers selling their own services).

Therefore, I hope that LE doesn't abuse their power to arrest/charge SPs for advertising sexual services (only if the ad is explicit) which they know won't stick (due to immunity), in order to harass or gain leverage against SPs to eject or stop them, or to force them to talk about clients.