C-36 hype

[GPIDEAL]

Like I said earlier: if it simply fails, that is not a challenge. If it fails while ruining the lives of the people it's supposed to save, that's a definitive challenge. If a law ruins lives with little or no benefits that is the whole point of the constitution. Of course, the problem is that it take some evidential foundation to prove the harms and that can take many years.

One last thing about the communication provision: I am not so certain that it is problematic in and of itself. People are making the mistake of looking at separate provisions and thinking this one or that one is problematic. We have to look at it as a whole. Indeed during the Ontario appeal (If I remember correctly), the court ruled that the communication law was not a problem in the context of legal brothels. Likewise, if buying and advertisement was perfectly legal, I think that simply criminalizing the communication near schools could be ruled as reasonable. This would leave enough means to conduct legal business while avoiding exposure of children.

On the other hand, simply removing that provision while leaving buying illegal doesn't change anything at all to the result. To me that provision is a completely moot point when it comes to safety of the worker.

What provision? Buying?

The buying prohibition can render sex work more dangerous if prostitutes can't be more explicit with a menu and a guy feels he's ripped off and goes off the handle. That's just one example.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Reviews are not illegal under Bill C-36. As far as the LE are concerned you could be posting a review of your SO or a review could be about a woman you picked up in a bar for a one night hookup or someone you met on one of the dating web sites as long as you don't say you paid her or discuss her rates. As far as I can see in bill c-36 bar hookups are not illegal unless you buy the lady drinks, dinner, etc. That is one of the crazy points about this law, I bet that on average the nightly hookups are far more exploitive of the women than are the paid "dates". Mr. MacKay left the bar hookups out of the legislation so he can resume his hot stud on Parliament Hill when his wife gets smart and dumps him like Belinda.

Yes, reviews are not illegal under Bill C-36 but if they are explicit and refer to a popular SP under her alias handle, that might be circumstantial evidence of pay for play. Of course, one would need to I.D. the reviewer and prove that the activity actually took place at a time after December 6, 2014.

Lol to your Belinda comment.

 

[Siocnarf]

Yes, reviews are not illegal under Bill C-36...

However, I have the feeling a review could be considered as a form of advertisement, in the sense that it encourages people to purchase the services of the person reviewed. (Shill reviews are used as a form of advertisement, therefore legitimate reviews are also advertisement even if they are not under the control of the provider).

According to new TERB policies, it seems advertisers cannot use explicit language anymore. I don't know if this will also be applied to reviews as well...

 

[adventurous_man]

Thanks Fuji. I'm out of the game temporarily then

Yes, and that is probably one of the high risk areas. A sugar babe has a lot of information about you and if things ever turn sour she can waltz into a police station and get you arrested on pretty hard evidence. Since selling isn't a crime she can do that with impunity and paint herself as the victim of a luring perv.

A sugar babe may be new to the concept of sex for money and have no clients lose, may feel regrets, have a change of heart, get jealous of your real life SO, may get caught by her bf/family and turn on you to pacify them, etc.

Better stick to a pro and actively limit how much information they have about who you actually are, etc.

 

[GPIDEAL]

However, I have the feeling a review could be considered as a form of advertisement, in the sense that it encourages people to purchase the services of the person reviewed. (Shill reviews are used as a form of advertisement, therefore legitimate reviews are also advertisement even if they are not under the control of the provider).

According to new TERB policies, it seems advertisers cannot use explicit language anymore. I don't know if this will also be applied to reviews as well...

As I said, maybe circumstantial evidence, but I know for a fact, that a document cannot stand on its own in court as it must be vouched as to it's authenticity, etc. by a witness.

 

[Hard Idle]

In a nutshell, it seems to create more opportunities for convictions on a wider variety of activities. Beyond that, it's unclear..

What I really meant to say is that it creates more opportunities for laying CHARGES and seeking convictions. I really don't believe there will be many more convictions because I'm convinced the law is legal Swiss Cheese and an easy target for the appeal process.

The majority of people convicted will be those who take plea deal, which they would have done if charged under the previous law, and those unfortunate enough to run into a Judge who is a life long anti-prostitution crusader willing to overlook anything just to convict a John.

I don't think it will be difficult to bring the law down, but because the process itself is slow & cumbersome and the government will appeal each overturned conviction every step of the way, it will still take years to get back to where we were in 2013.

 

[lomotil]

What I really meant to say is that it creates more opportunities for laying CHARGES and seeking convictions. I really don't believe there will be many more convictions because I'm convinced the law is legal Swiss Cheese and an easy target for the appeal process.

The majority of people convicted will be those who take plea deal, which they would have done if charged under the previous law, and those unfortunate enough to run into a Judge who is a life long anti-prostitution crusader willing to overlook anything just to convict a John.



I don't think it will be difficult to bring the law down, but because the process itself is slow & cumbersome and the government will appeal each overturned conviction every step of the way, it will still take years to get back to where we were in 2013.

There will be no return back to the prostitution climate prior to 2013. If bill C36 is strut down and the government in office is Reformist like the current one, then prostitution will probable be made illegal. Making new laws like C36 is fraught with political potholes and no government wants to willing tackle this subject unless compelled to by a SCC ruling. Furthermore now that the purchase of sex is to become illegal do not expect the Liberals or NDP to campaign to make the purchase of sex again legal.

It appears now keeping a mistress would also be illegal. A savy, jilted mistress or kept woman could use Bill C36 as a tool of blackmail or extortion against her sugardaddy. Also could income splitting be viewed and extrapolated to be a sophisticated taxdodge and violation of this gender biased bill C36?