What are the short-term consequences of C-36?
- Thread starter arodb
- Start date
- Jun 15, 2004
- 8,313
- 1,456
- 113
LmFaO iS rIgHt!!! LiKe.....GaG mE wItH a FoRk!!!
I think he's content with talking to himself, and thinking (fooling himself) that he's giving off the impression of actually having a conversation....97% of the time.
That DB is a real affront. The police should not be sharing information with foreign governments about anyone who wasn't actually convicted of a crime. Even arrests should not be shared where there was no subsequent conviction, unless the case is still an active/open case (trial underway or whatever). We need to pressure Parliament and the Ontario Legislature to eliminate that practice. In the meantime, they do indeed share it.
The answer at the border is to deny you did anything wrong. You can't be excluded without hard evidence, either in the form of a conviction, or a confession from you. The border officer will use the arrest record to ask you probing questions in the hopes that you admit to something (openly or inadvertently) that makes you inadmissible. Also be aware that lying to the border is grounds for a lifetime ban -- so word your denial carefully. If you know you have something on your record that may come up at the border it is probably a good idea to come with a plan -- if you were arrested and found not guilty, or the charges were dropped, carry a copy of the disposition of your case.
For a background check, if it is for a regular job, you should be fine -- that information shouldn't even come up. For a sensitive job, e.g., one where you work with children, or where you have a higher security clearance, you are probably S.O.L. until you get the police to remove the damaging information from your file. Good luck.
Only within the confine of C-36 prostitution is made "somewhat" illegal, and that ambiguity will be subject to challenge.
Here we have a transaction involving two consenting adults, and C-36 allows one party to conduct her(his?) activity and advertise to seek a partner but criminalize the other party that answers the call. Ain't we all equal in the eyes of the law ? And how is that not an entrapment ?
If the law is based on the assumption that providers are the victims of the transaction, how is that going to be proven in a court of law ?
It isn't entrapment, the government is not inducing you to purchase sex. And you are indeed equal before the law: if you sell sex you too will get immunity.
I haven't heard any credible legal argument that the criminalizing of the purchase of sex will be inherently unconstitutional. The only argument that might be made is that it still creates a situation which puts sex workers in danger, but that argument isn't a sure bet and it will take years to collect data to make a case.
The only sections that have come under heavy criticism are those that criminalize communications and living off the avails. And even those arguments have not been tested in court.
The core of c36 isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I haven't heard any credible legal argument that the criminalizing of the purchase of sex will be inherently unconstitutional. The only argument that might be made is that it still creates a situation which puts sex workers in danger, but that argument isn't a sure bet and it will take years to collect data to make a case.
The only sections that have come under heavy criticism are those that criminalize communications and living off the avails. And even those arguments have not been tested in court.
The core of c36 isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
To get actual details of the key failings of C-36 hear it straight from the expert: Professor Alan Young who led the S.S.C. Bedford case. Here is link to his speaking to the Senate hearing. He starts 1 hour 19 minutes into the video. http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.a...e=2014-09-17&eventid=9626&languagecode=12298#
The subject of entrapment came up in regards to a sexworker entrapping the customer in extortion.
Hey TF, still waiting on that tweet!
I think criminalizing the purchase of sexual services violates the Charter of Rights section on freedom of association and the right to liberty. Sexuality is a natural part of life. It is not something which was invented by humans, so the govt. needs a very good reason to control what consenting adults do in private.
The main way the govt. justifies bill C-36 is the claim that most sex workers are victims. When the law is challenged they will have to provide evidence to prove this.
Damn that asian girl is cute
no matter how deep you analyze the c-36 bill. you're still fucked. johns won't be doing the fucking no more. now, its going to be the other way around.
Short term effect of C36 are that by this time next year attrition will have started to occur, less purchases by johns, less women going into the trade and less pimps. Long term, the sex trade cannot be eradicated but will necessarily morph into a different model. Despite their immunity, less prostitutes will remain in the trade due to less income and more hassles. Prostitutes working to finance substance abuse will still remain strong however. Those who say the new bill is not a major game changer are liars with alternative motives or are dillusional.
The thing that makes me dispute your long term projection is because I had a service in Chicago for 10 years were it is all illegal including outcall & yet ..... had plenty of college / University students & moms working. AGAIN: even in Chicago they were not going on a crusade , went after specific problem situation. Look on Backpages: Chicago. Basically even in the environment in the U.S. the Industry thrives & not just with drug addicted S.P.
I do agree it sees like many are overly scared in the short term ..... I believe as they see there will not be random raids on some 200+ incalls & 200+ Spas biz will go back to normal ..... as I see in the U.S. / a thriving biz.
Laws against prostitution do not stop prostitution, they just ruin lives. People continue paying for sex even though they risk a criminal record.
It will force changes on the industry, and some clients will wind up in court on charges, but prostitution won't disappear.
It will force changes on the industry, and some clients will wind up in court on charges, but prostitution won't disappear.
Truth be told I just re-read your posts and you are right. You did mention trafficking and condos. I missed the trafficking part. I let off against spa owners in general because of past events and for that I apologize. i am man enough to admit it. I did not however openly attack you personally though, like the rapid fire barrage you hurled at me. That is not my style. Must be a woman thing. anyway, let it go Emily, much more important things to focus on than this non sense. Have a good day
Andy
Of course I know Alan Young and all your legal team who argued Bedford at the SCC and at the OCA but I don't "know" him, as in "you down with OPP, yeah you know me". They are there to protect you not us.
Instead of you and the other majors bickering amongst yourselves, you should be hiring these legal minds to comfort us, the consumers of your fine services. But alas, there is little comfort that you (or your legal minds including the venerable Alan Young) have for any of us out here.
This is not to diminish in any way your activism or advocacy. We all know your beginnings and your commitment to this cause. We are all behind you. No one agrees with this oppressive law. It was not required to protect the vulnerable. It was passed to send a political message and impose a moral code on us, because they can't impose morality to stop abortion or homosexuality. It mollifies the feminists.
We are not as dumb as we sound (at least not all of us).
