Lawyer offers seminar on C-36 - There is nothing to worry about.

[bobcat40]

I can only speak about licensed body rub parlors in toronto. And yes, I know for sure, at this time there is zero intent to pursue c36 in relation to bodyrub parlors. I don't expect folks to believe me. But please tell me where your research comes from? And why you assume my meetings were, as you call them, informal. Why because you weren't there? Or because the Star didn't report it? What qualifies to you as formal? To date, ive had over 25 meetings with more than 8 different levels of enforcement, each lasting well over 2-4hrs. I've had both casual & professional meetings with politicians ranging from local ridings to toronto officials to provincial representatives. I've compiled a team of 12 lawyers ranging from bylaw to criminal to constitutional to litigation. I've also spent time with SPOC, Ms Bedford, a couple Senators, and today even spoke with the Premier of BC. While you guys are arguing semantics, I'm out getting facts. Never assume.

My knowledge is based on repeated consensus, reliable sources, decision makers, and the fact that I've been brought into some of the efforts on what they actually are focusing on.

As for your bodyrub confusion, a bodyrub is not defined as a sexual service. Not federally, provincally, or Municipally. Not regarding Toronto anyway, which is where my efforts have been concentrated.

Toronto body rub parlors are licensed to sell body rubs. For the past 2yrs my spa has only sold time. We don't sell nudes or toplesses or bodyslide. I changed nothing on our website except nekkid pics& the encore. I did not have to adjust our services, WE SELL BODY RUBS.

Collection of evidence for a murder is entirely different than howbody rub parlors are policed. Read this thread to learn about how it works: http://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?505711-LE-walked-in-on-my-session

What a bylaw allows or defines is not the same as law. Let's not confuse the 2 sir. In Toronto, an attendant would have to be clothed & use her vagina, quite the challenge if u ask me lol. And, muse is 100% non-full-service. So, next!

Purchase indirectly is not in c36. Profiteering indirectly is. And there are exceptions to that. Its all in the bill. Have a read.

I don't need to fool anyone. You can't honestly say or think I'd bet my criminal liability on "colourful technicalities" do you? I have 15yrs, my vagina, my reputation, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and my future invested in this industry honey. Quit the bullshit before you click "post" next time.

I have said all along that I'm bias. Hence do your own research. I'd love to hear about yours! Your time invested, money, resources......lets hear it. I couldn't possibly fit more into my schedule, so if you have been out fact-gathering/lobbying/working and have different conclusions, of course I'd love to know! Just as I have shared mine.

Judge all you want, but you don't fool me, you don't scare me, and you aren't harming my business. I wouldn't stop because a few terbies disagree, there are sex workers lives at risk here people!!!! This frustrates me because people blabber on without facts (ahem, fuji), and readers believe it. Then I have to spend more time to reply and correct the bs. Which, obviously, I care enough to do so. But I have yet to hear 1 single person say "Hey Emily, so-and-so decision maker sent me this" or "Come meet with my lawyer, his take is extremely different" or "Join me while I sit with XYZ and you'll hear why I said blah blah blah".

Meanwhile, I'm busy busting my ass to get this dangerous bullshit publically denounced, sent back to SCC, and a modernized Decrim system on the books.

"Ain't no body got time for...." this! get busy being proactive. Too many pessimists here sitting on their hands crying wolf.

For the record, I am not trying to scare you or harm your business. In fact, my comments are meant for discussion and I am sorry that everything I say doesn't exactly agree with you. But just because I don't agree doesn't mean I mean to bring you down or deserve the condescending attitude implied by your post...I actually do hope you are successful in what you are trying to accomplish.

I would argue that what I've said isn't exactly foolish at all. A body rub can be a sexual service - they are not mutually exclusive. The definition of a body rub is so overly broad it could encompass everything from a back massage to full out sex. If you are going to say I'm foolish then please specifically tell me how the definition "body-rub is a service where the primary activity is the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating by any means by at least one person of at least one other person‟s body or part thereof" can't somehow be sexual in nature in some cases? You are right in saying that the criminal code doesn't concern itself at all with what a body rub is - they only care about the actual service being rendered.

When I mentioned a formal meeting, I mean where the actual meeting is documented and available to the public. That equates to an official policy stance. Anything else, isn't quite the same. People who may end up in court aren't likely gonna be able to say "MPASQaured told me she spoke to some Police higher ups and they said they weren't gonna enforce...". This needs to be documented and official to be of real value. What is stopping these "officials" from flatly denying what you claim they've said at a later date? While I believe you to be an honest person, people should be skeptical if such conversations have gone the way you've said as by your own admission "I have said all along that I'm bias". Is it fair for you to say members to "do your own research" and when their research seems to indicate anything that contradicts your position then you just attack them and say "Quit the bullshit before you click "post" next time"?

And when you suggest that we as "Johns" have some kind of obligation to do what you are doing and try to advocate change, I also think that is unrealistic. You have a vested business and personal interest. We do not. When MGM Grand lobbied the government for a casino in Toronto I supported them. It doesn't mean I'm going to go the extent they went in getting their way. Again, I want to say again I fully support you, but it's not fair to say in the same breath you are biased and also that everything else that people say that is remotely against your position is bullshit. I also don't think I should be compared to fuji as he is a little crazy but I truly believe what I'm saying is more logical.

 

[jamestheother]

@ Jamestheother

There are some good links that summarize and explain the law. You need to understand the law before you can try to circumvent it, or mitigate the risks. back sabbath has made one good suggestion.

Here's a downloadable Q & A (do a search under C-36 on this website and you will get a list of other articles).

http://www.aidslaw.ca/site/reckless...ion-of-communities-and-exploited-persons-act/

In fact, I just Googled, "Legal Advice for C-36" and came up with this downloadable report by the Canadian Bar Association which includes legal analyses and conclusions. All for free.

http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-57-eng.pdf

Thanks. Very helpful.

 

[jamestheother]

For the record, I am not trying to scare you or harm your business. In fact, my comments are meant for discussion and I am sorry that everything I say doesn't exactly agree with you. But just because I don't agree doesn't mean I mean to bring you down or deserve the condescending attitude implied by your post...I actually do hope you are successful in what you are trying to accomplish.

I would argue that what I've said isn't exactly foolish at all. A body rub can be a sexual service - they are not mutually exclusive. The definition of a body rub is so overly broad it could encompass everything from a back massage to full out sex. If you are going to say I'm foolish then please specifically tell me how the definition "body-rub is a service where the primary activity is the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating by any means by at least one person of at least one other person‟s body or part thereof" can't somehow be sexual in nature in some cases? You are right in saying that the criminal code doesn't concern itself at all with what a body rub is - they only care about the actual service being rendered.

When I mentioned a formal meeting, I mean where the actual meeting is documented and available to the public. That equates to an official policy stance. Anything else, isn't quite the same. People who may end up in court aren't likely gonna be able to say "MPASQaured told me she spoke to some Police higher ups and they said they weren't gonna enforce...". This needs to be documented and official to be of real value. What is stopping these "officials" from flatly denying what you claim they've said at a later date? While I believe you to be an honest person, people should be skeptical if such conversations have gone the way you've said as by your own admission "I have said all along that I'm bias". Is it fair for you to say members to "do your own research" and when their research seems to indicate anything that contradicts your position then you just attack them and say "Quit the bullshit before you click "post" next time"?

And when you suggest that we as "Johns" have some kind of obligation to do what you are doing and try to advocate change, I also think that is unrealistic. You have a vested business and personal interest. We do not. When MGM Grand lobbied the government for a casino in Toronto I supported them. It doesn't mean I'm going to go the extent they went in getting their way. Again, I want to say again I fully support you, but it's not fair to say in the same breath you are biased and also that everything else that people say that is remotely against your position is bullshit. I also don't think I should be compared to fuji as he is a little crazy but I truly believe what I'm saying is more logical.

+1

Bobcat40 is reasoned and measured in his posts. He should not be attacked or insulted for making them.

I would also react in a similar way as MPASquared if legislation affected my business as profoundly as these amendments to the criminal law.

For us "law abiding" straight men, it is difficult to accept that in an ever increasing sexually progressive and permissive Canada (where gay sex is accepted, indeed celebrated, swingers are tolerated, adultery (while not accepted is not criminal)), that consensual straight sex (and its many variations - including possibly body rubs) has been criminalized in Canada because there is a consideration component.

Of course there will be tension here. The clients who previously did not face the possibility of criminal prosecution and conviction are the targets of this law.

Bobcat40 thank you for this important post.

 

[MPAsquared]

For the record, I am not trying to scare you or harm your business. In fact, my comments are meant for discussion and I am sorry that everything I say doesn't exactly agree with you. But just because I don't agree doesn't mean I mean to bring you down or deserve the condescending attitude implied by your post...I actually do hope you are successful in what you are trying to accomplish.

I would argue that what I've said isn't exactly foolish at all. A body rub can be a sexual service - they are not mutually exclusive. The definition of a body rub is so overly broad it could encompass everything from a back massage to full out sex. If you are going to say I'm foolish then please specifically tell me how the definition "body-rub is a service where the primary activity is the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating by any means by at least one person of at least one other person‟s body or part thereof" can't somehow be sexual in nature in some cases? You are right in saying that the criminal code doesn't concern itself at all with what a body rub is - they only care about the actual service being rendered.

When I mentioned a formal meeting, I mean where the actual meeting is documented and available to the public. That equates to an official policy stance. Anything else, isn't quite the same. People who may end up in court aren't likely gonna be able to say "MPASQaured told me she spoke to some Police higher ups and they said they weren't gonna enforce...". This needs to be documented and official to be of real value. What is stopping these "officials" from flatly denying what you claim they've said at a later date? While I believe you to be an honest person, people should be skeptical if such conversations have gone the way you've said as by your own admission "I have said all along that I'm bias". Is it fair for you to say members to "do your own research" and when their research seems to indicate anything that contradicts your position then you just attack them and say "Quit the bullshit before you click "post" next time"?

And when you suggest that we as "Johns" have some kind of obligation to do what you are doing and try to advocate change, I also think that is unrealistic. You have a vested business and personal interest. We do not. When MGM Grand lobbied the government for a casino in Toronto I supported them. It doesn't mean I'm going to go the extent they went in getting their way. Again, I want to say again I fully support you, but it's not fair to say in the same breath you are biased and also that everything else that people say that is remotely against your position is bullshit. I also don't think I should be compared to fuji as he is a little crazy but I truly believe what I'm saying is more logical.

Lots of things "could be sexual in nature". Like advertising, music lyrics, car shows, kissing booths, etc. That's not illegal. A bodyrub massage is not a sexual service.

The reason I'm frustrated is that some of these threads and post are repetitive and lack facts. I'm still waiting for yours...

Of course no one should say "mpa2 said". Duh! That's why I say do your homework! From the client-angle, not mine. My clients are safe, ive done my homework to ensure that, and that's well beyond my info-gathering.

I'm bias because of my affection for this industry. 15yrs & I'm still in love with it. And I come from a dual-angle, sex worker (former) and owner. I'm overly invested. I'd be a liar to say I'm not bias. Hence why I said don't just listen to me!

Your example of a casino is flawed. You can support that all you want but it doesn't change your criminal liability! C-36 does. And for that reason folks need to do a heck of alot more to adjust, adapt, be aware, educated, counciled, and join the activism.

One min you are saying it's not the clients job to be abreast of his new legal standing & criminal risk. The next post you are saying that those that have done the leg work are wrong. You can't have it both ways sunshine.

+1

Bobcat40 is reasoned and measured in his posts. He should not be attacked or insulted for making them.

I would also react in a similar way as MPASquared if legislation affected my business as profoundly as these amendments to the criminal law.

For us "law abiding" straight men, it is difficult to accept that in an ever increasing sexually progressive and permissive Canada (where gay sex is accepted, indeed celebrated, swingers are tolerated, adultery (while not accepted is not criminal)), that consensual straight sex (and its many variations - including possibly body rubs) has been criminalized in Canada because there is a consideration component.

Of course there will be tension here. The clients who previously did not face the possibility of criminal prosecution and conviction are the targets of this law.

Bobcat40 thank you for this important post.

That is incorrect. It doesn't affect my business profoundly. It affects safety of sex workers profoundly!!!! Life or death profoundly. Violence, rape, assault kind of profound.

And, you are also incorrect in saying clients didnt previously face criminal prosecution. It simply has a different name now. What was once a "found-in" is now a "purchaser". And targets of politicians are VERY different than targets of enforcement.

As much as you are knocking the info I know, you aren't presenting any facts that state the contrary. That's what I'm waiting for. If you are going to critique, present facts. You can't discredit my Intel and yet have zero of your own.

Lastly, I can base my stance on mmy meetings. Several of them have been in the context of LE seeking my council for trafficking investigation. I've been helping them compile new approaches, more modern/tech-savy directives, and sharper detection. So yes, I do know what they are focusing on.

And, yes, a new chief could change that game. Tory won't publically state anything until the AG does her work. And provincial out-weighs local/municipal....so let's focus on that! the AG needs the right info, from sex workers, johns, owners, loved ones, and supporters. Over 100 agencies & organizations nation-wide have come out swinging! Time for johns to join the fight too! (actually, the time has been for months now, but you guys aren't very proactive or dedicated to saving yourselves....instead you expect everyone else to do the leg work & support you. In other threads I literally had posters claiming owners had to pay your legal bills should u decide to poon, responsibly or otherwise! I mean, come on! Get an anonymous movement going, make a simple website, spread the word, join together, and get on the band wagon!) Why sit like a duck&wait? That is ludicrous to me. That's gambling on all providers or owners being accurate. Betting on all sp's putting your legal standing before their own. And a lot of complaining without any action. If clients were really outraged, you'd get movin'! Between all the review boards, you are talking about a million+ citizens (voters)...you outweigh all of us combined. if each of you took 5mins to act, you'd move more mountains than you can even imagine! I'm just 1 girl, look at all I have done simply by taking a few mins to make the calls or write the letters I have. Doors open. Missed chances never return.

*by "you" I don't mean you 2 specifically, I mean all customers.

 

[TeasePlease]

A bodyrub massage is not a sexual service.

On what do you base this statement? As far as I know, there have been no test cases nor has clarification of the statute been passed.

The casino example is relevant. Look at the big picture and a few steps down the road. Playing politics is like playing chess and you need to know where you're going. It's about the public appetite for activities of moral/social hazard.

As for the rest...

Let's assume that the hobbying world consists of more than a single body rub in the northwest corner of Toronto, or that the industry is more than just Toronto.

Let's further assume that not every agency or spa is run by altruistic, kind-hearted life coaches.

Let's suppose that some spas do engage in trafficking, or employ underage girls (in fact, we know we don't have to suppose this one).

What happens if LE decides to enforce trafficking and comes across a guy at the spa buying services from that girl? Do you think LE will give him high-fives and send him home?

 

[MPAsquared]

On what do you base this statement? As far as I know, there have been no test cases nor has clarification of the statute been passed.

The casino example is relevant. Look at the big picture and a few steps down the road. Playing politics is like playing chess and you need to know where you're going. It's about the public appetite for activities of moral/social hazard.

As for the rest...

Let's assume that the hobbying world consists of more than a single body rub in the northwest corner of Toronto, or that the industry is more than just Toronto.

Let's further assume that not every agency or spa is run by altruistic, kind-hearted life coaches.

Let's suppose that some spas do engage in trafficking, or employ underage girls (in fact, we know we don't have to suppose this one).

What happens if LE decides to enforce trafficking and comes across a guy at the spa buying services from that girl? Do you think LE will give him high-fives and send him home?

My personal business interests are in Toronto. The rest of the GTA spa owners will have to do their own homework. I've been way too busy in Toronto.

Toronto body rub parlors aren't adult entertainment venues. A bodyrub is not defined in any case or paper or law as a sexual service. Just because you are focused on a happy ending has zero to do with a body rub massage. Keep on topic.

Don't be foolish TP, your negativity spins are old news to me. Lol.

If any spa is trafficking or employing under age (which also means unlicensed) then cops should go in! And any guy getting services knowingly from an under age girl should rot too. I never said I believe anything else. In fact, that is in my paper the Senate read.

Stop confusing trafficking with prostitution. You sound like the Cons you vote for.

In fact, 3 weeks ago, I helps Tps rescue a 17yr old from a spa. Because I've been helping their new trafficking squad. And a tip came my way from a concerned source. She is now safe & sound. Also, just last week, another 16yr old was rescued from a hotel out in Barrie because of our work.

LE does enforce trafficking laws. As they should.

Can we get back to c-36 now?

 

[bobcat40]

My personal business interests are in Toronto. The rest of the GTA spa owners will have to do their own homework. I've been way too busy in Toronto.

Toronto body rub parlors aren't adult entertainment venues. A bodyrub is not defined in any case or paper or law as a sexual service. Just because you are focused on a happy ending has zero to do with a body rub massage. Keep on topic.

Don't be foolish TP, your negativity spins are old news to me. Lol.

If any spa is trafficking or employing under age (which also means unlicensed) then cops should go in! And any guy getting services knowingly from an under age girl should rot too. I never said I believe anything else. In fact, that is in my paper the Senate read.

Stop confusing trafficking with prostitution. You sound like the Cons you vote for.

In fact, 3 weeks ago, I helps Tps rescue a 17yr old from a spa. Because I've been helping their new trafficking squad. And a tip came my way from a concerned source. She is now safe & sound. Also, just last week, another 16yr old was rescued from a hotel out in Barrie because of our work.

LE does enforce trafficking laws. As they should.

Can we get back to c-36 now?

I find it most interested that you claim your business is entirely legal and will successfully protect customers, and you have also said "I've compiled a team of 12 lawyers ranging from bylaw to criminal to constitutional to litigation."; presumably to help you formulate your business model. If your lawyers have told you they are confident that customers frequenting your establishment have nothing to fear (I believe you have insinuated this many times), why not release a signed legal opinion from your team? A document from your lawyers will quell the fears of potential customers and would pretty much put an end to this discussion all together.

To say we need to do our "Homework" on the issue is conflating two aspects of C-36.

1. Is receiving a "body rub" (Typically at least a body slide release) a sexual service? And would paying for such a service be therefore illegal? I'd argue probably yes, but if your lawyers feel differently then please enlighten us with their signed legal opinion.
2. If the answer to the question above is Yes, which I believe you have accepted despite your arguments to the contrary (Why even bother talking to cops, politicians and anyone else if your entire business is legal under C-36 anyways?); Then the next step is how to push the police and politicians to not enforce the law despite the fact you and your customers are breaking it.

My "homework" as to question 1 is already done. I know many lawyers and they said that customers of massage parlours could easily be seen to be purchasing a sexual service in the eyes of a judge. There is already case law which defines if a service is sexual or not. I will try to find the exact case but it involves a common person standard where if a random passerby were to observe the act taking place, if they were to feel such an act were sexual. Another standard they could use is the differentiation between standard assault and sexual assault where it all depends on if the victim felt there was a sexual nature to the crime. Body Rubs as performed today fit both definitions in a practical sense. My "Homework" is this sound analysis which has been confirmed by many lawyers I know. Again if I am wrong, why not post a copy of your legal opinion on the matter?

As for question 2, without an actual public policy position on the matter, everything is just speculation and conjecture at this point. I do think your lobbying work is definitely a step in the right direction but until the police chief or the major comes out and says we aren't going to touch Body Rubs, no one can be completely sure what will happen.

 

[MPAsquared]

I find it most interested that you claim your business is entirely legal and will successfully protect customers, and you have also said "I've compiled a team of 12 lawyers ranging from bylaw to criminal to constitutional to litigation."; presumably to help you formulate your business model. If your lawyers have told you they are confident that customers frequenting your establishment have nothing to fear (I believe you have insinuated this many times), why not release a signed legal opinion from your team? A document from your lawyers will quell the fears of potential customers and would pretty much put an end to this discussion all together.

To say we need to do our "Homework" on the issue is conflating two aspects of C-36.

1. Is receiving a "body rub" (Typically at least a body slide release) a sexual service? And would paying for such a service be therefore illegal? I'd argue probably yes, but if your lawyers feel differently then please enlighten us with their signed legal opinion.
2. If the answer to the question above is Yes, which I believe you have accepted despite your arguments to the contrary (Why even bother talking to cops, politicians and anyone else if your entire business is legal under C-36 anyways?); Then the next step is how to push the police and politicians to not enforce the law despite the fact you and your customers are breaking it.

My "homework" as to question 1 is already done. I know many lawyers and they said that customers of massage parlours could easily be seen to be purchasing a sexual service in the eyes of a judge. There is already case law which defines if a service is sexual or not. I will try to find the exact case but it involves a common person standard where if a random passerby were to observe the act taking place, if they were to feel such an act were sexual. Another standard they could use is the differentiation between standard assault and sexual assault where it all depends on if the victim felt there was a sexual nature to the crime. Body Rubs as performed today fit both definitions in a practical sense. My "Homework" is this sound analysis which has been confirmed by many lawyers I know. Again if I am wrong, why not post a copy of your legal opinion on the matter?

As for question 2, without an actual public policy position on the matter, everything is just speculation and conjecture at this point. I do think your lobbying work is definitely a step in the right direction but until the police chief or the major comes out and says we aren't going to touch Body Rubs, no one can be completely sure what will happen.

First off, lawyers advised us on how to adjust to stay law-compliant. 2nd, my fight isn't for my business. Its for the adult industry. Yes, ive focused on the city within my experience lies, because I can speak to many sides thru actual experience. So the discussions & lawyers & such have ranged from restructuring to fighting the entire bill.

1. A body rub is NOT a bodyslide. 2 entirely different terms & definitions.

2. Depends on the parlor. Holistic? Unlicensed? Brampton? Pickering? Mississauga? In my spa, in Toronto, we don't sell bodyslide. We sell body rubs. As we are licensed to do.

3. A body rub is defined as a full body massage

4. Ummm the Premier has. And city councillors.

 

[bobcat40]

First off, lawyers advised us on how to adjust to stay law-compliant. 2nd, my fight isn't for my business. Its for the adult industry. Yes, ive focused on the city within my experience lies, because I can speak to many sides thru actual experience. So the discussions & lawyers & such have ranged from restructuring to fighting the entire bill.

1. A body rub is NOT a bodyslide. 2 entirely different terms & definitions.

2. Depends on the parlor. Holistic? Unlicensed? Brampton? Pickering? Mississauga? In my spa, in Toronto, we don't sell bodyslide. We sell body rubs. As we are licensed to do.

3. A body rub is defined as a full body massage

4. Ummm the Premier has. And city councillors.

I think the fact you are hesitant to answer my questions directly already kind of shows your position on the matter. The questions are simple:

1) Can a body rub activity legally defined as "kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating by any means by at least one person of at least one other person‟s body or part thereof", also be a sexual service. (Yes or No)? If your answer is no, you are suggesting that a full body massage in no shape or form, whether or not it involves a blowjob, full service, or anything else could be considered a sexual service. If that is your take on it then I would appreciate if you could also provide a legal opinion on that as well as I doubt I am the only one that finds it hard to understand the logic behind it.
2) If lawyers truly believe your business is C-36 compliant, can you tell them to put in writing an assurance that your business and its customers are fulling law abiding in the activities that typically occur in all MPs? (Yes or No)

 

[TeasePlease]

It's not fair or appropriate to ask MPA2 to post her legal advice. She is entitled to preserve her solicitor client privilege.

I agree that, on its face, her position begs many questions, not the least of which is that sexual service has not been defined but is generally accepted to be broader than the definition of prostitution.

p.s. don't confuse what the MP sells vs. what MPA sells. To us it may be one and the same, but in most cases, they are completely separate.

 

[MPAsquared]

I think the fact you are hesitant to answer my questions directly already kind of shows your position on the matter. The questions are simple:

1) Can a body rub activity legally defined as "kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating by any means by at least one person of at least one other person‟s body or part thereof", also be a sexual service. (Yes or No)? If your answer is no, you are suggesting that a full body massage in no shape or form, whether or not it involves a blowjob, full service, or anything else could be considered a sexual service. If that is your take on it then I would appreciate if you could also provide a legal opinion on that as well as I doubt I am the only one that finds it hard to understand the logic behind it.
2) If lawyers truly believe your business is C-36 compliant, can you tell them to put in writing an assurance that your business and its customers are fulling law abiding in the activities that typically occur in all MPs? (Yes or No)

You are massively confusing a body rub with extras.

I don't see how answering your questions is avoiding answering your questions.

I also cannot speak for "all spas". I have zero control over how other owners operate. I can however speak to mine. And we don't sell upgrades or extras. We are also exclusively non-fs.

We don't have a federal definition of a body rub. Because federal law doesn't govern body rub parlors. We do however have municipal definitions. And those range from city to city. In Toronto there are 25 licensed brp's. The rest are holistic or unlicensed. Toronto brp's are not listed as "adult entertainment". A body rub is not defined as a sexual service.

The way we choose to operate (and have for years) is that we sell time. Take a look at our pricing. We don't offer upgrades to topless, nude, etc. We don't offer fs. This is well documented. And known to LE. All our services are registered with the city, as per bylaw requirements.

I did ask our legal team if we should put an official compliance statement on our website & I was told no. Since we don't offer sexual services in exchange for consideration, it would be strange to put up a statement about something we dont do/offer. We don't sell a lot of things & I don't list those. Made perfect sense to me.

It's not fair or appropriate to ask MPA2 to post her legal advice. She is entitled to preserve her solicitor client privilege.

I agree that, on its face, her position begs many questions, not the least of which is that sexual service has not been defined but is generally accepted to be broader than the definition of prostitution.

p.s. don't confuse what the MP sells vs. what MPA sells. To us it may be one and the same, but in most cases, they are completely separate.

This! Mostly.

The body rub attendants who work at Muse don't sell sexual services. Read above & our website. Then, to compare, read the services listed at spas outside Toronto.

 

[icespot]

I think the fact you are hesitant to answer my questions directly already kind of shows your position on the matter. The questions are simple:

1) Can a body rub activity legally defined as "kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating by any means by at least one person of at least one other person‟s body or part thereof", also be a sexual service. (Yes or No)? If your answer is no, you are suggesting that a full body massage in no shape or form, whether or not it involves a blowjob, full service, or anything else could be considered a sexual service. If that is your take on it then I would appreciate if you could also provide a legal opinion on that as well as I doubt I am the only one that finds it hard to understand the logic behind it.
2) If lawyers truly believe your business is C-36 compliant, can you tell them to put in writing an assurance that your business and its customers are fulling law abiding in the activities that typically occur in all MPs? (Yes or No)

You have stated many good points, well done.

The law society did mention an example of how Bill C-36 creates a problem. Their report (link provided by GPideal) was completed in October 2014 and the government did not take into consideration their recommendations.:

Consider the following example which illustrates the difficulties inherent in section 286.2:

Ms. Smith provides lap dances which simulate sexual intercourse for consideration.
She does this work voluntarily and by choice. She operates out of her friend’s side suite.
As such, her friend encourages her to use the side suite for her business, accepting rent on a monthly basis from Ms. Smith.

Ms. Smith advertises her services on her website and is paid in cash. Ms. Smith has successfully operated her business for years.
Her operation is highly organized, involving the same bodyguard, receptionist and health care nurse every Friday.
All are paid from Ms. Smith’s work. Due to her success, Ms. Smith’s boyfriend no longer works and lives off of Ms. Smith’s profits.
No one has exploited Ms. Smith in any way.

According to Justice Canada, Ms. Smith is selling sexual services for consideration (lap-dances which simulate sexual intercourse).

37 In addition, the organization, duration and scope of Ms. Smith’s operation strongly suggest that it is a commercial enterprise under section 286.2(5)(e). As such, despite there being no being no exploitation, Ms. Smith’s friend/landlord, bodyguard, receptionist, health care nurse and boyfriend would all be guilty of receiving a material benefit from the sale of sexual services.

This example illustrates the counterintuitive nature of section 286.2(1), (4)(d) and (5)(e). The organized nature of Ms. Smith’s operation, which obviously contributes to her safety, actually increases the likelihood that it will be found to be a “commercial enterprise” and therefore illegal for those providing Ms. Smith with the safeguards essential to her well-being.

RECOMMENDATION:
2. The Canadian Bar Association National Criminal Justice Section recommends that section 286.2(4)(d) be amended to remove the words “if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services”.
3. The Canadian Bar Association National Criminal Justice Section recommends that section 286.2(5)(e) and section 286.2(6) be removed from Bill C-36.

 

[MPAsquared]

I think the fact you are hesitant to answer my questions directly already kind of shows your position on the matter. The questions are simple:

1) Can a body rub activity legally defined as "kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating by any means by at least one person of at least one other person‟s body or part thereof", also be a sexual service. (Yes or No)? If your answer is no, you are suggesting that a full body massage in no shape or form, whether or not it involves a blowjob, full service, or anything else could be considered a sexual service. If that is your take on it then I would appreciate if you could also provide a legal opinion on that as well as I doubt I am the only one that finds it hard to understand the logic behind it.
2) If lawyers truly believe your business is C-36 compliant, can you tell them to put in writing an assurance that your business and its customers are fulling law abiding in the activities that typically occur in all MPs? (Yes or No)

Btw, your definition is incorrect. "BODY-RUB - Includes the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching, or stimulating, by any means, of a person's body or part thereof but does not include medical or therapeutic treatment given by a person otherwise duly qualified, licensed or registered so to do under the laws of the Province of Ontario"

 

[TeasePlease]

The body rub attendants who work at Muse don't sell sexual services.

With respect, this is your interpretation of the law and a legal position taken by you/Muse. It is not a statement of fact.

It remains to be seen whether a full body rub is a sexual service, much less whether an Encore, Backstage Pass, a body slide, Italian, Russian, or Norwegian (I just made that one up) constitutes a sexual service.

The term simply hasn't been defined in law by statute or jurisprudence. There's nothing to say that [service in question] is a sexual service, but there's equally nothing to say that it isn't. It's just opinion and argument at this point.

 

[MPAsquared]

With respect, this is your interpretation of the law and a legal position taken by you/Muse. It is not a statement of fact.

It remains to be seen whether a full body rub is a sexual service, much less whether an Encore, Backstage Pass, a body slide, Italian, Russian, or Norwegian (I just made that one up) constitutes a sexual service.

The term simply hasn't been defined in law by statute or jurisprudence. There's nothing to say that [service in question] is a sexual service, but there's equally nothing to say that it isn't. It's just opinion and argument at this point.

The encore is no longer on our menu. A prostate massage is done by various health practitioners well outside the realms of brp's or r&t's. As for the rest of your list, WE DONT SELL THOSE SERVICES!

You are entirely grazing over CONSIDERATION.

How convenient.

Regardless of what LE may or may not decide what's a sexual service & what isn't, they aren't for sale for consideration inside Muse. A full body massage that isn't adult entertainment is not a sexual service. Maybe if we were adult entertainment, or maybe if we did sell upgrades like other areas of the GTA, etc. But that's not the case in Toronto, and Muse.

 

[oldjones]

Toronto's Bodyrub licenses go back to the much more liberated days of the '60s and '70s. The argument was that the close restrictions of clinical and RMT massage licenses were too restrictive and needlessly limited the physical services adults could legitimately offer and enjoy commercially. So a definition was composed that didn't require 'medical' purposes or knowledge for the services provided.

Back then the state had only just recently been kicked out of the nation's bedrooms, and birth-control only recently legalized, against vehement protests from conservatives happy with 'things as they are'. So it's not at all surprising that the pro-liberation lobby stuck to the impracticality and foolishness of trying to maintain that only medicalized touching could and should be legal. What is remarkable is that nude and nude reverse massages were being advertised on billboards at Yonge and Dundas while the debate was going on, but nonetheless good sense won the day and Toronto licensed bodyrubs.

Then as now, any business selling sex was criminal. No one can license a criminal act or enterprise. The clear wording and intent was to distinguish, permit and license businesses selling touching that gratifies and satisfies, as distinguished from that which cures.

Thus began the End of Civilization and Goodness until Our Dear Leader and Peter his disciple came along to restore it with C36.

Argue about body-slides being sexual services as much as you want—no one knows until a court decides.

 

[bobcat40]

Btw, your definition is incorrect. "BODY-RUB - Includes the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching, or stimulating, by any means, of a person's body or part thereof but does not include medical or therapeutic treatment given by a person otherwise duly qualified, licensed or registered so to do under the laws of the Province of Ontario"

I had cut off the last part because it wasn't relevant for discussion but thanks for the correction. The definition of what a body rub is doesn't vary from city to city, it is defined under the municipal act in the province of Ontario. The municipalities can only pass bylaws which regulate where and how body rubs are performed.

When I had recommended the publicizing of legal opinions, it was for the purpose of potentially putting customers at ease. Obviously if their opinion doesn't entirely 100% legitimize your operation and highlights potential risks, I can see how you would wish to hide that from customers; hence our point which is that there are definitely risks for customers.

I entirely agree with teaseplease when he suggests that just because the courts haven't ruled if a full body massage is or isn't a sexual service, it doesn't mean that it isn't. Such services could easily be seen to be sexual services.

 

[GPIDEAL]

That's not the law.

The law refers to "sexual services". What would be required to establish that you purchased, or communicated for the purpose of purchasing, a sexual service?

No but the law says 'obtaining sexual services for consideration'. So if I get some and are caught in that predicament, even if remote or unlikely (and masturbation is described in the Technical Paper or Backgrounder as an example of a sexual service), it's not unreasonable for a peace officer to suspect that it was included as part of a paid massage service.

Are you saying they need actual transactional, quid pro quo evidence? I like that thinking.

 

[GPIDEAL]

this is the problem with non-lawyers debating the law, you miss the details.

There is no single DUI charge in the CCC. Rather there are two different charges. Drive while impaired by x, y and z, which does not require evidence of BAC, and c and c while having a BAC over .80 which does.

Perhaps there should be a seminar on this.

Well, I agree with Tease Please and yourself (which you eloquently explained).

If you drive like you're impaired, whether via alcohol or marijuana, they can charge you.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Actually, owners face much bigger charges than a john. 10yrs to be exact.

Correct.

They would have to witness the john's attempt to purchase. Walking in/out of a brp is 1000000% legal. As is getting a body rub.

I wasn't talking about walking in or out of a BRP. I agree with you - nothing illegal there. I was talking about being caught red-handed, even though remote or unlikely, but I like the reminder that they must witness or have proof that any payment included or will include a sexual service.

However, there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence. Could a HJ have been free or a perk for repeat business and not an extra? This isn't a question posed to you of course, but a hypothetical one that a judge may have to consider.

It's not about masturbation. Its about sexual services. There is no federal definition of a bodyrub. Only municipally via bylaws, which vary greatly city to city.

In Toronto, for example, it is defined as a full body massage. To massage, manipulate, or stimulate the body by any means.

"It's not about masturbation". Maybe in the Bill Clinton Lexicon of Sex, but the Technical Paper and Backgrounder cited cases where masturbation and self-masturbation in a room with a paid female, were considered sexual services.

HOWEVER, I agree with you (as I've pointed this out too), that body-rub was not mentioned in the government discussion papers as being a sexual service (not that it needs to be - a body massage is not a sexual service).

Evidence. Lol. Duh.

Circumstantial evidence - (n.:law) evidence of indirect nature; from which the fact is not directly proven but may be inferred by the tribunal.