Bill C-36 tabled (New Prostitution Law)

[DigitallyYours]

Trying to figure out what is the definition of sex or sexual service in this bill!!. Can't find anywhere.

I don't think it's defined. Although it would be hard to imagine that doesn't involve sexual intercourse. Would kissing be caught in this definition, who knows?

And for a bill whose purpose is to aid those being exploited, it doesn't use the word 'exploit' anywhere.

 

[DigitallyYours]

banning advertising is against free speech in the charter of rights

Well, this bill criminalizes advertising of other people's sexual services, but there is an exemption of advertising one's own sexual services. Still, from my reading, I don't think a person can hire someone else to place ads for them. Not sure why there should be a prohibition on this. If it's legal for a person to sell sexual services and legal for him/her to advertise it, he/she should be able to delegate this to someone else.

 

[james t kirk]

If I might make a wider social commentary here.

As I'm getting older, I must admit that I am tired of all the whining out there about VICTIMS.

The only victims I see are kids under 18, where something happens to them. They are victims.

Anyone over 18 cannot be a victim (other than crime I suppose). But the notion of women (and men) who sell sex as victims is nonsense. Sex workers made a conscious decision to enter the world of selling sex and if they don't like it, they have no-one to blame but themselves. Same goes for any woman who finds herself sold into sexual slavery. I don't have much sympathy because you ALLOWED it to happen. Our entire legal system seems to be geared around the notion of victimhood.

Whenever I fuck up (and there have been plenty of occasions), I blame myself because I allowed it to happen.

This law is just another case of women as victims at the hands of men. Bullshit already.

 

[wilbur]

"286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration,the sexual services of a person is guilty of

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,

(ii) in any other case,

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000."

There it is, folks!

This is the basic law as it applies to everyday buying of sexual services. That's the minimum penalty, and it goes up in a public place and/or where persons under 18 may be present, whatever that means.

They also failed to define what a sexual service is.

 

[DigitallyYours]

Well I am trying to figure out if I can continue to see dancers (involving contact dances and kissing) but can't find the answer anywhere. It is idiotic to ban something and not bloody define what is that they are banning!!!!!!

This law is very overbroad and poorly drafted. They took out references to "prostitution" and changed it to "sexual services" which really could include lap dancing and erotic massages.

 

[BeGentle]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/harper-government-introduce-prostitution-legislation-today-125019548.html

according to this article, this is a new offence...

"Advertising the sale of sexual services in print media or on the Internet."

So, ladies, it's legal for you to sell, you just can't advertise anywhere?

 

[lovelatinas]

They also failed to define what a sexual service is.

Which is why it will be struck down by the SCC. Is a lap dance under their definition a sexual service? Is photographing and paying a nude model with explicit poses exposing her vagina for the camera considered sexual services?

 

[james t kirk]

Which is why is will be struck down by the SCC.

And Harper has so much respect for the Supreme Court.

 

[james1961]

The conservatives have a majority, why would it take years?

A majority in both senate and house, it could pass by the end of the NHL season.
Let's see how many vote against the bill as opposed to not voting.

Once the bill comes into effect, you need to think twice.

 

[lovelatinas]

This law is very overbroad and poorly drafted. They took out references to "prostitution" and changed it to "sexual services" which really could include lap dancing and erotic massages.

Or if your a porn producer and your shooting a porn movie with paid actors and shooting porn photos for a website. They poorly defined sexual services.

 

[DigitallyYours]

Okay I am no law expert but when I read it it is my understanding that only solicitation in a public place is illegal. Communications via private media remains legal??. I.e. text messages, emails can not get anyone in trouble if sex solicited? Not sure. Also there is a narrow gateway that agencies can use to continue to operate and that is to keep workers safe (body guards) as far as they are not in exploitative relationship (take a reasonable amount and do not dictate to those they represent what to offer and what to do......). But they cannot advertise!!!

I think the bill, as written, makes it a criminal offense to communicate with anyone for the purpose of obtaining sexual services for consideration. It doesn't have to be in public. But the fines/penalties go up if it's in a public place.

 

[lovelatinas]

And Harper has so much respect for the Supreme Court.

They struck down the first one. In your face Harper.

 

[DigitallyYours]

Question : Now with this new bill is less risky to go to massage parlours ? Because with the previous laws you could be charged just for being found in a bawdy house, now with the new law they have to prove that sex happened.

Well, you couldn't be charged for being found in a bawdy house. But they could charge you with obtaining a sexual service for consideration.. if a handjob is considered a sexual service.

 

[D-Fens]

Those who voted for Harper just don't make the same x2 by voting for Hudak.

what do you think of all this fred? How worried are you?

 

[wilbur]

Advertising:

286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration
is guilty of

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.

286.5

(1) No person shall be prosecuted for

(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling
a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So yes, a sex worker can legally advertise if it's for services delivered by her directly.

However, it's not clear whether the medium, such a newspaper or TERB itself is included in act of "Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer..."

TERB knowingly advertises offers, so would they be guilty?

It appears that they would not be because they are posting an ad submitted by a sex-worker herself for her own benefit. But I could see different opinions from law enforcement.

 

[bobcat40]

Well, you couldn't be charged for being found in a bawdy house. But they could charge you with obtaining a sexual service for consideration.. if a handjob is considered a sexual service.

Well there actually is already a ONCJ decision on the issue if a handjob is prostitution found here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/d...earchUrlHash=AAAAAQANYmF3ZHkgY2hpc3ZpbgAAAAAB

The key finding:

[28] Considering the facts before me, as I have found them, I am not satisfied when applying the community standard test that the act as described in this proceeding constituted prostitution. I am not satisfied that the Crown has shown the activity, using the community standard test, constitutes acts of sexual gratification in return for the payment of money.

[29] The payment of money as I have found it was for a full body massage. The act of masturbation was optional, at no additional fee. Indeed, I wonder, and am left in a doubt as to whether or not the community might consider the act of masturbation in all situations to be sexual. One only needs to look to the conduct of a certain president of the United States and the response to activity that he participated in to wonder whether or not the act of masturbation is indeed in all circumstances a sexual act. Given that the act was done in private, as part of a massage, participated in voluntarily by all individuals, and a fee was paid regardless of whether or not the act took place, I am not satisfied that the Crown has met its onus and that the conduct constituted prostitution.

 

[lovelatinas]

Okay I am no law expert but when I read it it is my understanding that only solicitation in a public place is illegal. Communications via private media remains legal??. I.e. text messages, emails can not get anyone in trouble if sex solicited? Not sure. Also there is a narrow gateway that agencies can use to continue to operate and that is to keep workers safe (body guards) as far as they are not in exploitative relationship (take a reasonable amount and do not dictate to those they represent what to offer and what to do......). But they cannot advertise!!!

Soliciting over the web, email, text messaging is illegal too, but harder for LE to prove. And the only way LE can prove that is by spying on your emails and tapping your phone which is unconstitutional. LE will probably focus on street prostitution if this law comes in effect.

 

[afterhours]

Well there actually is already a SCC decision on the issue if a handjob is prostitution found here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/d...earchUrlHash=AAAAAQANYmF3ZHkgY2hpc3ZpbgAAAAAB

The key finding:

[28] Considering the facts before me, as I have found them, I am not satisfied when applying the community standard test that the act as described in this proceeding constituted prostitution. I am not satisfied that the Crown has shown the activity, using the community standard test, constitutes acts of sexual gratification in return for the payment of money.

[29] The payment of money as I have found it was for a full body massage. The act of masturbation was optional, at no additional fee. Indeed, I wonder, and am left in a doubt as to whether or not the community might consider the act of masturbation in all situations to be sexual. One only needs to look to the conduct of a certain president of the United States and the response to activity that he participated in to wonder whether or not the act of masturbation is indeed in all circumstances a sexual act. Given that the act was done in private, as part of a massage, participated in voluntarily by all individuals, and a fee was paid regardless of whether or not the act took place, I am not satisfied that the Crown has met its onus and that the conduct constituted prostitution.

it's not SCC, it's the lowest level of court for criminal stuff (Ontario Court of Justice). You can rest assured that this judgment has little to no weight.

This is what Court of Appeal thinks about the judge who authored the above decision (on an unrelated case):

It is clear that the trial judge had no power to make the order that he purported to make. It was illegal and an abuse of judicial authority. Furthermore, even if the power existed, there was no basis upon which to make the order on the facts of this case. The trial judge’s actions were highhanded and did a real disservice to the proper administration of justice.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2012/2012onca168/2012onca168.html

 

[lovelatinas]

Well, you couldn't be charged for being found in a bawdy house. But they could charge you with obtaining a sexual service for consideration.. if a handjob is considered a sexual service.

Yeah but they don't define what sexual service is. The cops could find me lying in bed naked with a SP having wine is that considered sexual service.

 

[wilbur]

I see a constitutional conflict between 286.5 permitting advertising of individual prostitution and 286.1, outlawing the purchasing of same sexual services, legally publicized in these legal ads.

In fact, publicizing what is against the law could be construed as counselling to commit an offense, which is a Criminal Code of Canada offense. As far as I could see, there was no exclusions to this section, as it relates to the new Bill.

Very bad legislation, as it will wind up at the SCC in its present form.