The PC's took $1.6 billion away from the veterans to insure that this bill will be enforced rigidly - in the short term.
What are the short-term consequences of C-36?
- Thread starter arodb
- Start date
But you ARE breaking that law (C-36), regardless if you purchase it or communicate to purchase it.
Hello Andy,
I get your point about state-sponsored entrapment, but providers can't advertise explicitly without breaking the law. The immunity provision comes after. So this means that cops can charge a gal for advertising, but later drop the charge (or it will be stayed) once they learn she's the one providing the service. In effect, legal like you say, however, not without the possibility of incurring an arrest record or charge that is held in limbo (unless she has it quashed?). This to me is a form of harassment. Did Allan Young talk to this point?
You're confusing the issue.
THE SALE OF SEX IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT AN OFFENCE UNDER THE REVISED CRIMINAL CODE. HENCE, THERE'S NO IMMUNITY FOR AN SP SELLING SEX (cuz it's a non-issue). THERE'S ONLY IMMUNITY IF SHE EXPLICITLY ADVERTISES OR MATERIALLY BENEFITS.
No he did not, he did however say its the stupidest law that he has ever encountered in his career. It just makes no logical sense from the outside or even legally. It is of his opinion that the first charge will be challenged and thrown out. He also did say that challenges are already in the works by various groups. etc. I believe Pivot legal out of BC is one of them.
Yes it is. It very clearly is. And there is not immunity for everyone selling sexual services, only for some. You cannot sell a sexual service provisioned by someone else, for example, that is clearly illegally selling sex.
Some have argued that granting immunity in the code itself makes it legal but exactly what that really means has never been tested in court. There is a difference between an activity that is legal, and one for which you have been granted immunity from prosecution.
not true at all. you are misinformed. They are even given tools to ply their trade safer. In the govts eyes anyway. this new law is beyond stupid, its like a dog chasing its tail. the more I learn about it the more insane it gets. it defies logic
You should know that is a disputed opinion, one that relies on sections of the act being found unconstitutional.
286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
^^^ That is later modified by granting immunity to some people (people who sell their own sexual service) but it fundamentally makes the act illegal. Or at least, that is the opinion of the Crown. None of this is tested in court, obviously.
(I agree that the act is beyond stupid, that it is harmful to everyone, etc, but that doesn't mean I refuse to understand what it says.)
That's the bit that is disputed. The act says they cannot be prosecuted, which is different than saying it is legal.
The opinion of some lawyers is that because the girls are granted immunity from prosecution, it's effecitvely legal. The opinion of the crown is that it's illegal, but they have been granted immunity, no different than if they offered someone immunity from an assault charge in order to get their testimony on a murder case -- the assault isn't legal just because immunity was granted. A coalition of defense lawyers wrote a paper arguing that since immunity was always granted, it was effectively making the act legal, but that is an opinion not tested in court.
Would agree with you except for one point. The govt has in their eyes, taken measures to make their trade safer. Better than the previous laws, in which makes what they do LEGAL. Previously even an escort driver could have been charged with living off the avails. With communist- 36, girls are allowed to hire a driver and body guard.
Technically, it is legal to sell. Look at it this way, suppose it costs an SP $150 to get a hotel room, $20 for travel, another $x for this that and the other thing. In all, suppose the SP doesn't actually make any money because of the expenses. In other words, she receives NO material benefit. Thus, 286.2 is not triggered at all. There is no ambiguity in this situation. It is entirely legal for her to sell her services in this scenario. Yet, the law still makes it illegal for anyone to buy her services.
There is no illegality around offering sexual services for consideration. There is some illegality around materially benefiting. Are these always the same? No.
There is no illegality around offering sexual services for consideration. There is some illegality around materially benefiting. Are these always the same? No.
With your theory, if we run our agency at a loss every year. We receive no material benefit. lmao, Just helpin the girls out ossifer.
Love how everyone is such a know it all on here. All you armchair lawyers and armchair cops LMAO listen unless you have some sort of "inside source" at Toronto Police Services or something, Or you've actually spoken to real lawyers and law enforcement, Anything you say can be disregarded as speculation, and conjecture. I'm not interested in what you think is going to happen I want FACTS. Not Opinions. Have you spoken to real cops and lawyers? what have they told you? That's what I'd like to know. Not your bullshit theories.
and you all know who you are.
and you all know who you are.
Everyone should form their own opinion. Based on facts & research, not just terb posts!
Oh give me a break lol. You came out swinging mud against spa owners because I posted that the trafficking squad is targeting trafficking in condos. That made you lash out. Blame you, not me sweetheart.
Bang away! C36 has caused me more holes in my bitten tongue than swiss cheese lol!
Now this I agree with!
Agreed. I anticipate a slowdown.
Montreal, quebec city, Vancouver, & victoria have.
Right! I asked for a link to that tweet days ago...*cough* bullshit *cough*
Just a copy/paste of the tweet will do just fine
Anyone else here think this handle must have at least seven personalities? Only three of whom can moderate their use of capitals and punctuation marks Lmfao.
That remains to be seen.
Yes, I have.
They don't know either. Even Alan Young will tell you that until this hits the SCC nobody really knows.
I would note that the most authoritative source on your side of this debate, the CBA, has specifically disclaimed any comment that criminalizing the purchase of sex is unconstitutional, in their paper that attacked several other provisions.
I several times posted the Letter from the City of Vancouver on the City of Vancouver website about there reaction & Policy direction regarding C-36. Sorry other info I do not have as written letters of proof of Policy nor see any others posting on city websites their declaration of Policy .....only Vancouver.
