Has there been cases being charged for buying sex under the Bill C36?
- Thread starter hot.andy4u2002
- Start date
Ordinarily, there must be proof that someone is in danger or violence and rape has occurred before they can bust the door down. They cannot proceed on some ideological preamble to some statute. The police must have probable cause.
I've been in a room with two escorts (pre-C36 mind you) when your friendly neighbourhood cops knocked on the door to respond to a complaint about animal cruelty (supposedly from a competing SP). I was dressed and in my saintly disposition, twiddling my thumbs, and the fine officers went on their merry way when they discovered no evidence of such a complaint after the SPs in question quelled their concerns.
So, police won't knock down doors unless they hear screams of danger or for help. What would happen is that an adult would answer the door and say, "Excuse me officer, how can I help you"? When they see that everything is fine, and that she consents to your presence, they will also be merrily on their way.
Questions....
If you have an sp in your room and there has been NO exchange of money (just hanging out and talking), has anyone in the room broken the law?
If you have an sp in your room, have sex with them, and there is NO exchange of money, has anyone broken the law?
If you call an agency and ask to have an sp come to your hotel room, has anyone broken the law? (include that the agency does not advertise as a sexual service provider, and does not promote prostitution, stated in their online disclaimer).
To me it seems to be the exchange of money. Or is it merely the intention to exchange money for an sp's time.
If any of this is breaking the law, then buying a girl drinks in a bar, with the intention to bang her later that evening, and being successful at it, is borderline breaking the law. Or is buying her a gift (drinks) in exchange for sex, not considered a form of payment?
This law is really fucked up!
If you have an sp in your room and there has been NO exchange of money (just hanging out and talking), has anyone in the room broken the law?
If you have an sp in your room, have sex with them, and there is NO exchange of money, has anyone broken the law?
If you call an agency and ask to have an sp come to your hotel room, has anyone broken the law? (include that the agency does not advertise as a sexual service provider, and does not promote prostitution, stated in their online disclaimer).
To me it seems to be the exchange of money. Or is it merely the intention to exchange money for an sp's time.
If any of this is breaking the law, then buying a girl drinks in a bar, with the intention to bang her later that evening, and being successful at it, is borderline breaking the law. Or is buying her a gift (drinks) in exchange for sex, not considered a form of payment?
This law is really fucked up!
No to most of your questions.
Basically, what is illegal is an agreement to purchase sex for consideration (money or payment in kind) OR to communicate for that purpose (I would like to have this for $xxx). The vendor (SP) is immune from prosecution.
A mention in a preamble may clarify the thinking of Parliament, but it is not the statute and doesn't have any legal consequence. As Courts have repeatedly ruled.
It's your opinion that those words (which you refer to but haven't quoted) create an obligation for the police, but I've yet to hear that from anyone else. I'd bet the first time such words might be offered as any sort of submission before a judge would be to excuse some destructively over-zealous cops and the damage they did hoping to get to a bedroom while their quarry was still nekkid. An excuse is as far from an obligation as I can imagine.
Surely any responsible adults who actually wanted police to risk their lives conducting surprise break-ins (without advance knowledge of firearms on site) would have explicitly spelled out that obligation, rather than leaving them to read it into the law as you've been so ready to do.
A statute cannot obliterate facts, such as mutual consent, or the absence of danger or violence; it can only define an offence in a way that makes some factual conditions necessary and makes others irrelevant. A CloudCuckooLand such as you have invented, where such ordinary logical devices make violent police assaults imperative is far too close to the totalitarian fiction of 1984 or the ideological thuggery of North Korea.
Last edited:
So, would that mean, a sting could be set up online, and all the texts "she" gets from JOHN's would be considered "communication for the purpose"..........I guess technically it would.....shit we all better stop texting.
What a foolish argument this is. You're wandering all over, from police action without a search warrant, to contradicting yourself on whether a mutual consent is irrelevant or invalidates a charge. It's tedious, and I just want to finish off your assertion that the legal pretext that buying sex is equivalent to bullying to get it somehow justifies, nay obligates, the police to forcibly enter premises without a warrant to stop such a crime.
The legal definition that says purchased sex is an act of coercion, cannot change any observable fact that may be testified to under oath. One example might be the purchaser and provider — as well as those who violently broke in upon them — swearing that they were both peacefully enjoying their mutually pleasurable activity which they had engaged in by enthusiastic agreement and whose most violent aspect was a few pelvic thrusts.
So how would any sane judge rule that the police indeed had "an obligation" [your term] to dispatch an ETF squad to break down the door with a battering ram, so they could charge into the premises, weapons drawn, to forestall a violent crime in progress? Absent self-incriminating testimony about payment, they would be unable to collect any evidence the sex wasn't entirely non-commercial, in any case.
Any consensual aspect of purchased sex may have been defined into irrelevance in determining guilt under c36, but that in no way excuses the police from using common-sense and appropriate resources and tactics commensurate with the actual danger at hand. All of which would be extremely relevant in any civil actions for property damages, internal police disciplinary actions, judge's admonitions from the bench, and r3eports by officials like the Ombudsman, the SIU and the media.
You may think the police might properly use unwarranted, violent tactics against you and your outcall and the front door of your home, but you haven't begun to offer the least bit of persuasive argument for that view.
Sorry, but if the cops are handed the key by the owners of the premises, they are in no way breaking in.
Right. The same laws there always were, not the chicken little/sky is falling nonsense everyone freaked out about last year.
A landlord can only enter rented premises under certain conditions, as it must honour a covenant of "Peaceful and quiet enjoyment" to the benefit of the tenant.
Last edited:
In theory yes, but only if you text details confirming a purchase of sex or an offer to purchase same.
I don't think the statute actually states that any sex between two adults involving consideration as a pre-condition is deemed not to be consensual. That's inviting an easy constitutional challenge.
How is it the same as breaking in? That was your original contention, that police had an obligation to bust in, without a warrant, because a crime defined as violent was being committed on the premises.
Not that I want to argue yet another irrelevant side-issue with you, but an innkeeper renting short-stay rooms and a landlord renting your residence have significantly different rights of access and responsibilities to their tenants. Likewise a hotel-guest (not to mention guest of a guest) and a sitting tenant with an apartment lease have significantly different rights to and expectations of privacy.
None of that makes using a key you were handed into a forcible entry.
However the point DB123 was making is that only the 'old' offences were being enforced as yet. I'm reasonably certain most of us know what the new law says. What it means in practice is why there's a forum on it, and I thought it's why the OP asked if there had been charges.
Amazing how much conservatism has affected what goes on between consenting adults...a real shame...too bad money has driven such a rightward push in US, UK, and Canada has impacted things that shouldn't be anyone's business. And they all amplified each other. Hopefully, the tide will turn quickly, but C-36 is here to stay for a long time.
The fact that it's the guys who boast about their respect for personal liberty and freedom who take such a reactionary and punitive approach to eliminating other people's personal conduct and choices simply because they themselves disagree with them is deeply ironic. It illustrates a sad truth about the human capacity for self-deception and hypocrisy.
And given our lazy attachment to easy labelling instead of more difficult analysis that's not as easy to communicate, that sort of "do as I say even If I don't, or I'll make you sorry" authoritarianism makes 'conservative' into a term of abuse when that viewpoint should be part of every one's evaluative processes, as should 'liberal'.
It happens when your firmest support is from a rigidly extreme minority, rather than the majority we necessarily always form by the compromises fo living together.
"Prosperity requires liberty: to be productive we must be free." Jarret B Wollstein
