c36

[GPIDEAL]

More precisely, a licensed body rub is not necessarily a brothel. What happens vs. what is licensed to happen aren't necessarily the same.

Anyhoo, this position is valid until the definition of "sexual service" is clarified. At least until then, BRP's can assert that they do not provide a sexual service.

TeasePlease, you're ruining my chance of being an official spokesperson for the BR parlors.

We can't use adjectives like 'necessarily' and invite closer scrutiny please.


From the technical paper, it would seem that masturbation (whether self or by another) would be deemed a sexual service, even without a climax, however, as seen in other citations which were examined more closely by Colt and others, the Technical Paper is not accurate.

Let's put it this way, if a lap dance is a sexual service, a body slide could be one too.

But such services are not advertised in all spas, so the BR joint can't be deemed in the negative view, unless there's evidence to the contrary.

(Which begs the question: Can the Bramptom spas that advertise body slides, or Nude Reverse slides, be raided or charged with advertising sexual services? Do you know if they have changed such wording?)

 

[stay]

Since holistic offer the same as BR, why don't a couple of ladies open up and offer premium package service for our premier packages.

 

[WackyJuice]

Conservatives are soooo funny with their old fashion traditional values. Just because they married the first chick that game them a handjob at a highschool prom doesn't mean we have to

 

[Trailer Park Boy]

This whole conversation reeks of the same Y2K paranoia we went through almost 15 years ago. The world will not come to an end. Life will go on. Get over it.

 

[TeasePlease]

TeasePlease, you're ruining my chance of being an official spokesperson for the BR parlors.

We can't use adjectives like 'necessarily' and invite closer scrutiny please.


From the technical paper, it would seem that masturbation (whether self or by another) would be deemed a sexual service, even without a climax, however, as seen in other citations which were examined more closely by Colt and others, the Technical Paper is not accurate.

Let's put it this way, if a lap dance is a sexual service, a body slide could be one too.

But such services are not advertised in all spas, so the BR joint can't be deemed in the negative view, unless there's evidence to the contrary.

(Which begs the question: Can the Bramptom spas that advertise body slides, or Nude Reverse slides, be raided or charged with advertising sexual services? Do you know if they have changed such wording?)

As you pointed out, they would first have to get a ruling that a bodyslide or masturbation is a sexual service. Brampton spas are already changing their advertising and maybe even their business models.

This whole conversation reeks of the same Y2K paranoia we went through almost 15 years ago. The world will not come to an end. Life will go on. Get over it.

You're right. We all know the world's oldest profession isn't going away. But, that's not to say that it can't be adversely affected or be forced to change significantly. Would you not be concerned if your business suddenly faced a 20% drop? 30%? 50%?

 

[sindbad]

Can someone please tell me what day C36 will officially become law? I understand it's in December but is there an official date? I couldn't find this on Google.

 

[Open Wide]

Apparently it's technically December 6, but since that's a Saturday then officially Monday December 8...

 

[legmann]

Apparently it's technically December 6, but since that's a Saturday then officially Monday December 8...

Lol..

 

[sindbad]

Apparently it's technically December 6, but since that's a Saturday then officially Monday December 8...

Thanks. Does that mean the law won't apply on the weekends? lol

 

[pablice]

Thanks. Does that mean the law won't apply on the weekends? lol

Gents tis the weekend we've all been preparing for..starting to make my calls already and empty my hobby funds...you guys ready to get this on and party it up like its 1999...

...yeah baby :evil:

 

[shakenbake]

Apparently it's technically December 6, but since that's a Saturday then officially Monday December 8...

Yeah, right. The criminal code isn't in effect on weekends.

December 6, symbolically, is the memorial day for the murdered women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, if you recall. That is presumably why the bill did not receive royal assent on November 5, with a start date of December 5. It was no coincidence at all. The fucking Cons wanted to have the effective date fall on December 6. How poetic when the new laws will encourage violence against women!

 

[legmann]

Yeah, right. The criminal code isn't in effect on weekends.

I think we were all being sarcastic. Most of us found it humorous, without taking it literally.

December 6, symbolically, is the memorial day for the murdered women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, if you recall. That is presumably why the bill did not receive royal assent on November 5, with a start date of December 5. It was no coincidence at all. The fucking Cons wanted to have the effective date fall on December 6.

Do you know this for fact? Somehow, does not strike as a anything the government would give a damn about.

How poetic when the new laws will encourage violence against women!

Sadly ironic, yes.

 

[oldjones]

I think we were all being sarcastic. Most of us found it humorous, without taking it literally.


Do you know this for fact? Somehow, does not strike as a anything the government would give a damn about.


Sadly ironic, yes.

About the massacre, you are right; OHG doesn't give a damn. I am sure they do plan on using it for PR advantage when they trumpet their law and order triumph to their supporters. And I am sure that sad event will be in their Press Release touting C36 as a measure protecting women from misogynist violence.

 

[Pistola]

Yeah, right. The criminal code isn't in effect on weekends.

December 6, symbolically, is the memorial day for the murdered women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, if you recall. That is presumably why the bill did not receive royal assent on November 5, with a start date of December 5. It was no coincidence at all. The fucking Cons wanted to have the effective date fall on December 6. How poetic when the new laws will encourage violence against women!

About the massacre, you are right; OHG doesn't give a damn. I am sure they do plan on using it for PR advantage when they trumpet their law and order triumph to their supporters. And I am sure that sad event will be in their Press Release touting C36 as a measure protecting women from misogynist violence.

That day was horrible event and it shouldn't be forgotten. If C -36 uses this day like we expect. Shows how low the Harper group will go. This has nothing to do with sex workers and clients looking for a release and a massage. That horrible event was about mental illness. They should pick another day. Separate the days. I must agree that's a long shot. So I should save my breath and let things go where they may lay. I already made my mind. Harper is out. Justin Trudeau in.

 

[op12]

Ok, I'll bite.

Please elaborate.

I will help you out by directing you the Section 7 of the Charter.

Which right is infringed by government making the purchase of sexual services illegal?

Sure, I'll give it a whirl.

The Charter of Rights does not explicitly indicate that gay marriage is a right but Section 15 of the Charter was used (I believe) to successfully argue for it. So a behavior does does have to be explicitly mentioned for it to be a right.

Now on to consensual sex between mentally competent adults. The charter does not actually explicitly mention that this activity is protected, not even "free" sex is mentioned as a protected right AFAIK. But the charter does discuss freedom of association, expression, thought and belief.

I would be reasonably confident that a talented constitutional lawyer could use the above to argue that consensual sex is protected and also argue that consensual sex for money is also protected. Money is a sideshow IMHO.

Most discussion of the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of C-36 never discusses this core right. Normally the discussion is about reducing harm to women (a good thing) but the issue will never fully die until the very heart of the matter is brought to the Supreme Court (I.e. the government does not actually have the power to criminalize consensual sex between mentally competent adults, even if a form of remuneration is involved).

 

[MPAsquared]

Sure, I'll give it a whirl.

The Charter of Rights does not explicitly indicate that gay marriage is a right but Section 15 of the Charter was used (I believe) to successfully argue for it. So a behavior does does have to be explicitly mentioned for it to be a right.

Now on to consensual sex between mentally competent adults. The charter does not actually explicitly mention that this activity is protected, not even "free" sex is mentioned as a protected right AFAIK. But the charter does discuss freedom of association, expression, thought and belief.

I would be reasonably confident that a talented constitutional lawyer could use the above to argue that consensual sex is protected and also argue that consensual sex for money is also protected. Money is a sideshow IMHO.

Most discussion of the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of C-36 never discusses this core right. Normally the discussion is about reducing harm to women (a good thing) but the issue will never fully die until the very heart of the matter is brought to the Supreme Court (I.e. the government does not actually have the power to criminalize consensual sex between mentally competent adults, even if a form of remuneration is involved).

From what I have come to understand (and correct me if I'm wrong) constitutional challenges generally roll with the easiest win. Meaning whatever portion or clause or charge is most likely to be deemed unconstitutional is the portion they fight with. In comparison of a sex workers right to safety Vs a person's right to sexual expression, safety is an easier win. The criminalization of ANY aspect of sexwork puts sexworkers lives in jeopardy; as per Bedford, it contradicts a person's right to safety & security of the person. That includes criminalizing the customer (the john). That is a stronger argument, especially with Bedford as a president, and is inclusive of both the rights of the client and the rights of the sex worker. Aka, a win!

C-36 goes directly against the Bedford decision & the Supreme Courts specific instructions.

 

[legmann]

The Charter of Rights does not explicitly indicate that gay marriage is a right but Section 15 of the Charter was used (I believe) to successfully argue for it. So a behavior does does have to be explicitly mentioned for it to be a right.

Now on to consensual sex between mentally competent adults. The charter does not actually explicitly mention that this activity is protected, not even "free" sex is mentioned as a protected right AFAIK. But the charter does discuss freedom of association, expression, thought and belief.

I would be reasonably confident that a talented constitutional lawyer could use the above to argue that consensual sex is protected and also argue that consensual sex for money is also protected. Money is a sideshow IMHO.

Most discussion of the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of C-36 never discusses this core right. Normally the discussion is about reducing harm to women (a good thing) but the issue will never fully die until the very heart of the matter is brought to the Supreme Court (I.e. the government does not actually have the power to criminalize consensual sex between mentally competent adults, even if a form of remuneration is involved).

The criminalization of ANY aspect of sexwork puts sexworkers lives in jeopardy; as per Bedford, it contradicts a person's right to safety & security of the person. That includes criminalizing the customer (the john). That is a stronger argument, especially with Bedford as a president, and is inclusive of both the rights of the client and the rights of the sex worker. Aka, a win!

C-36 goes directly against the Bedford decision & the Supreme Courts specific instructions.

Good points.

 

[magnus666]

C-36 goes directly against the Bedford decision & the Supreme Courts specific instructions.

Unfortunately that is only an opinion. It will take somebody bringing the matter before the SCC. It will then be up to that body to determine if indeed C-36 goes against their previous instructions. Until that decision is made (which may take years, or maybe even never) crown attorneys are free to treat C-36 as a legitimate part of the criminal code, and prosecute any individuals charged under the provisions of the law. Conversely, prosecuting attorneys may feel that C-36 is a lame duck, and any convictions will eventually be thrown out, and therefore, it is a futile waste of resources to prosecute cases involving C-36, so they just won't bother.

Additionally, opinions regarding the validity of C-36 may not be consistent across provincial jurisdictions, so in some provinces there may be prosecutions, while in others, the law may be unenforced.

We will have to wait and see how the whole thing plays out. Maybe our grandchildren will finally resolve the matter.

 

[MPAsquared]

Agreed. However there are many many people, lawyers, groups, & advocates all working to get this to the SCC much faster. We mean business. And we won't rest until this is fixed.

 

[kevenj]

A good first step is to have Wynn agree to send C36 to the Ontario Court of Appeal for a ruling. SCC route will take years.