It's still the law. Blue Pearl was raided and the owner charged well after the OCA struck down living off the avails.
If people want to quit, they should absolutely do so. Just base it on something grounded in reality.
c36
- Thread starter sockobuw
- Start date
It's still the law. Blue Pearl was raided and the owner charged well after the OCA struck down living off the avails.
If people want to quit, they should absolutely do so. Just base it on something grounded in reality.
Blue Pearl was raided and the owner was charged because he decided to hire an underaged girl. They always reacted very promptly on something like that..
Of course. The fact that the law was "lame duck" didn't prevent the police from using it.
From what I read, they found some guy during the raid who was involved in a "sex act" or something like that. But no mention of that person being charged with anything was reported. No women were charged with being found-ins either.
Some may find this interesting too.
http://craigpenney.com/Craig-Penney...Ontario-Canada-Obstruct-Police-Withdrawn.html
http://craigpenney.com/Craig-Penney...Ontario-Canada-Obstruct-Police-Withdrawn.html
no offense, but "grounded in reality" is YOUR opinion, which you have the right to have. counselling others as to what you feel to be true. Citing a bust that goes beyond the boundries of this thread. You and others on this forum want to preach what very well be commiting an offense, although it would be a summary judgement for the clients, it is an inditable offence for the owners. Your foolproof answer, just hand over more money for more service. On several occasions I had sex with a stripper in a SC, never once did any of them ask for more money and never did I give more. Yeah she didn't even bitch about getting only $20, but damn was she hot and ready. That would be an instance of no consideration, your idea is not.
MPAsquared
www.musemassagespa.com
Toronto doesn't license or advertise bodyslide. Yes, our mixers are registered. And the encore, backstagepass, & every other session we offer. We submit them with each new service we offer. All of them are still allowed. Not one bylaw clause needs to change with Toronto BR's. We aren't even listed as "adult entertainment".
Let's chat, I've had plenty of conversations & meetings with LE the past few weeks. In fact, I'd love just one meeting about another topic lol. My brain is fried! Lol!
That was because he employed underage girls, which was caught by MLS because of lack of licenses. TPS was called in & bam. Rightfully so!
Grounded in reality means just that.
I am not counselling anyone to do anything other than to use common sense, apply logic, and gather facts. I encourage everyone to go talk to the police and a criminal lawyer.
What I don't agree with is hysteria from people who seem to have no experience with the criminal justice system.
LE would have been alterted to and took action in this case, their only concern would have been the underage girl, this would have been more of an extraction than a general bust. Much different, they don't wait and investigate.
Sorry for bringing up Blue Pearl. I don't want to derail the discussion.
My point is just that the police solve problems using whatever tools they have at their disposal. They don't intervene in things they don't perceive as a problem.
My point is just that the police solve problems using whatever tools they have at their disposal. They don't intervene in things they don't perceive as a problem.
It isn't hysteria, it has the potential of ending a person's career ( or does it? ).
I have experience with the police, in fact with the unit that looks after the SC and MP, even though I am pretty sure that these businesses won't be their focus, I would never NEVER tell other members that all is good and they shouldn't worry.
As I mentioned, my concern is with MP that are doing $300 "the best massage in the GTA" or a SC that has menus ( not food ), something may just happen. I could care less if the business was an escort, but there are girls that DO NOT want to get their knees dirty, Yes they are sex workers and also need someone to stand up for them, they may just become a doctor one day.
I only ponder to myself, does this person have an alteria motive to his/her post.
Since we all anonymous, we will never know about motivations.
So again I encourage everyone to do their own research. Go talk to the police. Read the legislation again. Read the government primer again. Read the cases cited. Come up with a list of questions. Talk to a lawyer.
And when I say hysteria, I mean stuff like "I don't want to be the poster boy after being raided by a SWAT team." If you want to quit, then quit. But base it on something that is grounded in reality IMO.
Police always charges people in any industry with the whole bunch of things. It's not the tool
at their disposal.. It's easier for them to go to trial with the whole bunch of things. Plea bargain here and there and they may get a conviction.
What's important for you to understand if they are really after u
Do u really think that you-a client of a licensed properly run facility is more important to
Them than a business owner who brings his employees from China,
Keeps their travel documents and takes most of their money? I don't think that's the case..
MPAsquared
www.musemassagespa.com
This!! ^ Do your research people! + a little bit of common sense & logic. Don't take terb posts as gospel.
Interesting, all the threads about c36 and there is no discussion of what constitutes a legitimate bodyrub. That tells me that what is offered both now and in the future is NOT legal. No need to talk to a lawyer, the police or even your priest.
So the question on most people's mind is How can I continue my "hobby" without fear of being charged.
Do I have a legal right to the offerings?
Will there be a legal challenge to protect my rights?
Will the police target MPs?
Your guess is as good as mine,
So the question on most people's mind is How can I continue my "hobby" without fear of being charged.
Do I have a legal right to the offerings?
Will there be a legal challenge to protect my rights?
Will the police target MPs?
Your guess is as good as mine,
...an activity where the primary function is the kneading, manipulation, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating by any means by at least one person of at least one other person’s body or part thereof, but does not include medical or therapeutic treatment given by a person otherwise duly qualified, licensed or registered to do so under the laws of the Province of Ontario;
Since Emily said she's submitted her offerings for consideration in this thread I would say the topic was mentioned.
And the question still remains at what point does the stimulation become sexual in nature. Where exactly is the line. One can interpret the above as the MPA using her mouth the stimulate a customers penis, but we all understand even under the old laws that wasn't legal.
As long as licensed MP's offer legal services within the framework of the bylaw, and thats why we go there right. I don't think think there should be any concern, as long as nothing illegal is being offered, or requested. The confusion here seem to be legal v illegal. Illegal services are to be found everywhere. Some banks offer to set up tax havens offshore, if its proved to be illegal you will both be prosecuted, but they don't shut down the bank.
It has been suggested that we do our own research regarding bill c36 so here are some salient points to consider:
1) Prostitution has been legal in Canada for over 100 years.
2) There are plenty of laws on the books to protect minors, prevent human trafficking etc. To my knowledge the police and crown have had no particular difficulty in applying those regulations to prevent the crimes they were intended to stop. Those activities are already illegal, and arguments that police need "new and better tools" to prevent and punish those crimes is specious.
3) The anti-prostitution laws that were on the books pre 2014 were the governments attempt to do an end run around the preexisting prostitution laws (ie. if we can't stop prostitution because it is legal, we will create a series of convoluted laws to regulate activities that are associated with prostitution so that we can stamp it out indirectly). Even the Chief Justice of the SCC noted:
"We find ourselves in an anomalous, some would say bizarre, situation where almost everything related to prostitution has been regulated by the criminal law except the transaction itself. The appellants' argument
then, more precisely stated, is that in criminalizing so many activities surrounding the act itself, Parliament has made prostitution de facto illegal if not de jure illegal."
4) In 2013 the SCC struck down the existing anti-prostitution laws as unconstitutional. The basic premise was that by so tightly restricting the activities surrounding prostitution the laws were endangering the safety of sex trade workers, and thereby violating their Charter rights. The SCC gave Parliament 1 year to revise the regulations.
5) Subsequent to the SCC decision police were no longer able to apply sections 210 to 213 of the Criminal Code since they were now deemed unconstitutional. This had no effect on the regulations regarding exploitation of minors or human trafficking. The only significant result of the SCC decision was that the activities surrounding prostitution were now legal, making the activity both easier, and safer for the sex trade workers.
6) Parliament could have done nothing after the SCC decision. There were still enforceable laws to prevent exploitation of minors and human trafficking. Prostitution was still legal (which was the case since the 19th century). Consenting adults could engage in private transactions with reasonable assurance of safety. Instead, bill C-36 is the Minister of Justice's response to the 1 year delay the SCC gave to Parliament. Unfortunately C-36 is a return to the bizarre situation outlined in point 3) above. The only significant difference is that the sex trade worker cannot be charged under the provisions of C-36, only the client. This is Peter MacKay's underhanded attempt to use technicalities, and legal chicanery to address the SCC concern with Charter violations, while still trying to criminalize prostitution indirectly.
Now the real question is, did MacKay go through all this effort to create yet another end run around existing laws, just to let the new regulations just languish on the books without any attempt at enforcement? If that was his intent, he could have just ignored the whole situation, and spent the summer golfing, and fishing. Bill C-36 is yet again, an attempt by conservative politicians to stamp out prostitution in Canada. I have no doubt that police chiefs across Canada do not intend to make C-36 enforcement a priority, and when consulted by other members of TERB they are honest when they are saying that enforcement will be on a complaint basis, however police chiefs are not at the top of the food chain. A few phone calls and meetings between the right individuals could result in a shift in priorities.
Christmas will come early this year for Peter MacKay, and just like a kid with his shiny new toy on Christmas morning, I have little doubt that MacKay will want to play with his new law come December.
1) Prostitution has been legal in Canada for over 100 years.
2) There are plenty of laws on the books to protect minors, prevent human trafficking etc. To my knowledge the police and crown have had no particular difficulty in applying those regulations to prevent the crimes they were intended to stop. Those activities are already illegal, and arguments that police need "new and better tools" to prevent and punish those crimes is specious.
3) The anti-prostitution laws that were on the books pre 2014 were the governments attempt to do an end run around the preexisting prostitution laws (ie. if we can't stop prostitution because it is legal, we will create a series of convoluted laws to regulate activities that are associated with prostitution so that we can stamp it out indirectly). Even the Chief Justice of the SCC noted:
"We find ourselves in an anomalous, some would say bizarre, situation where almost everything related to prostitution has been regulated by the criminal law except the transaction itself. The appellants' argument
then, more precisely stated, is that in criminalizing so many activities surrounding the act itself, Parliament has made prostitution de facto illegal if not de jure illegal."
4) In 2013 the SCC struck down the existing anti-prostitution laws as unconstitutional. The basic premise was that by so tightly restricting the activities surrounding prostitution the laws were endangering the safety of sex trade workers, and thereby violating their Charter rights. The SCC gave Parliament 1 year to revise the regulations.
5) Subsequent to the SCC decision police were no longer able to apply sections 210 to 213 of the Criminal Code since they were now deemed unconstitutional. This had no effect on the regulations regarding exploitation of minors or human trafficking. The only significant result of the SCC decision was that the activities surrounding prostitution were now legal, making the activity both easier, and safer for the sex trade workers.
6) Parliament could have done nothing after the SCC decision. There were still enforceable laws to prevent exploitation of minors and human trafficking. Prostitution was still legal (which was the case since the 19th century). Consenting adults could engage in private transactions with reasonable assurance of safety. Instead, bill C-36 is the Minister of Justice's response to the 1 year delay the SCC gave to Parliament. Unfortunately C-36 is a return to the bizarre situation outlined in point 3) above. The only significant difference is that the sex trade worker cannot be charged under the provisions of C-36, only the client. This is Peter MacKay's underhanded attempt to use technicalities, and legal chicanery to address the SCC concern with Charter violations, while still trying to criminalize prostitution indirectly.
Now the real question is, did MacKay go through all this effort to create yet another end run around existing laws, just to let the new regulations just languish on the books without any attempt at enforcement? If that was his intent, he could have just ignored the whole situation, and spent the summer golfing, and fishing. Bill C-36 is yet again, an attempt by conservative politicians to stamp out prostitution in Canada. I have no doubt that police chiefs across Canada do not intend to make C-36 enforcement a priority, and when consulted by other members of TERB they are honest when they are saying that enforcement will be on a complaint basis, however police chiefs are not at the top of the food chain. A few phone calls and meetings between the right individuals could result in a shift in priorities.
Christmas will come early this year for Peter MacKay, and just like a kid with his shiny new toy on Christmas morning, I have little doubt that MacKay will want to play with his new law come December.
Maybe "…we all understand…under the old laws that wasn't legal", but it was never written in so many words, and it was up to each judge and jury to decide on which side of the general law they saw each specific act. Just as it's up to you, when you consider whether you'll go to a MP and what you'll get up to if you do.
Which is howcum that judge was able to rule that happy ending in the MP could be just a bit of joyful interplay that happened spontaneously and had not been proven to be an act of prostitution—defined as, 'a purchase of sex'.
What makes something a criminal offence is that 'everyone knows that's really, really wrong'. The more finely and precisely that act must be defined to parse away excusing circumstances, the more it belongs to mere administration and regulatory bylaws. Don't expect the Powers That Be will ever tell you just how much sex you can enjoy in exactly which ways and with whom under what circumstances; not as long as their voters are saying: Everyone Knows Sex is Scarybad. Just be sure you are doing nothing wrong. Really sure.
Because you may have to argue it.
Read bottom of post 101. Masturbation of another in a massage parlour is defined as a sexual service in this law. The old "handjobs" are legal and the other stuff is the problem (what you seem to want to hold onto) doesn't hold anymore.
Some small court judge is not able to deem this as non sexual anymore because the law clearly spells out the act of a handjob as sexual. That was not the case with the prior law.
