But the police is not getting a special budget to enforce this law (unless some province or municipality decides to form special units or something). Arresting clients will be more a waste of time and money for the police. Each guy gets fined 500$ but that money doesn't go directly to the police. Though I think in the case of john schools the fees go to the police and organizations who run it. The only reason they would want to apply that law is if they get instructions from the city to crack down on johns. I think most LE will not bother changing how they operate now.
Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments
- Thread starter gustave55
- Start date
I've read a lot of stuff in the last few posts that I think are very extreme and probably unrealistic. The police must show "probable cause" which isn't just their personal opinion, but a belief which needs to be logical enough to sufficiently be defended in court. Furthermore, the courts must consider a balance between the interests of law enforcement vs. personal liberties. In this case, arresting anyone who visits an SP would very likely be considered too arbitrary of a test to deprive someone of their personal liberties. The bar would just be set too low to allow police to just essentially arrest anyone remotely connected to an SP. If police are allowed to go down this route, where does it end? Can police just search through the SPs phone and arrest everyone on her address book because they could be Johns? Or why doesn't the police just obtain a search warrant for review boards and arrest all the members based on their IP address?
The point I'm trying to get across is that it is possible some cops may attempt "lazy" police work and just arrest people that visit an SP. But once it is met in court, the Judge will have his say against the officers conduct and such behaviour will cease. If it continues the police and the force can be successfully sued as they should have known better. The judge will also likely be convinced that such an unfair enforcement system will lead to prejudice against the accused.
I have also heard from some of my friends in the police force that they actually aren't comfortable enforcing bill C-36 because they know it will be challenged. They said that being the officer involved in triggering the next Bedford Case isn't exactly good for their career. You guys also need to consider that there are millions of laws in the books. Every single day, each of you are probably breaking a few of them and getting away with it. Police don't have time to enforce every law all the time. They deal with what is important. In the context of bill C-36, they are the exploited, underage, and trafficked sex workers. That is where the police will score points with the public and where they will be trying to have their photo-op. Knowing that half of Canadians don't want sex work criminalized makes arresting a bunch of Johns and screwing over some willing SPs in a victimless crime a pretty fruitless endeavour.
The point I'm trying to get across is that it is possible some cops may attempt "lazy" police work and just arrest people that visit an SP. But once it is met in court, the Judge will have his say against the officers conduct and such behaviour will cease. If it continues the police and the force can be successfully sued as they should have known better. The judge will also likely be convinced that such an unfair enforcement system will lead to prejudice against the accused.
I have also heard from some of my friends in the police force that they actually aren't comfortable enforcing bill C-36 because they know it will be challenged. They said that being the officer involved in triggering the next Bedford Case isn't exactly good for their career. You guys also need to consider that there are millions of laws in the books. Every single day, each of you are probably breaking a few of them and getting away with it. Police don't have time to enforce every law all the time. They deal with what is important. In the context of bill C-36, they are the exploited, underage, and trafficked sex workers. That is where the police will score points with the public and where they will be trying to have their photo-op. Knowing that half of Canadians don't want sex work criminalized makes arresting a bunch of Johns and screwing over some willing SPs in a victimless crime a pretty fruitless endeavour.
I totally agree with bobcat. In theory, police can get sloppy or vindictive and arrest some people without any valid proof. But if they do that too often they lose the respect and trust of both the public and the judges. Add the fact that this law can really backfire in their face in court and I think we can expect police to be very careful about using this law.
If the government doesn't want the law to be overthrown, their best bet is to use it as sparingly as possible. Unlike in Sweden this decision doesn't stem from a real initiative to address prostitution. The only reason they make this law is to save face after Bedford.
If the government doesn't want the law to be overthrown, their best bet is to use it as sparingly as possible. Unlike in Sweden this decision doesn't stem from a real initiative to address prostitution. The only reason they make this law is to save face after Bedford.
I think you are entirely correct. There have been cycles on these threads since the law has been changed - first everyone gets all paranoid about blackmail/arbitrary roundups/helicopters-scooping-up-johns-in-the-street, etc. and then a few level headed people bring things back into perspective. Then a lull, then more paranoia, etc. I don't bother any more, if people want to fantasize about how awful things can get, there's nothing I can do for them, and I don't really care to spend the energy on helping them out unless they are willing to pay my fee. So thanks for this. I'm waiting to see what happens, but I fully expect pretty much nothing to happen. And when/if it does, the road to the Supreme Court will open up.I've read a lot of stuff in the last few posts that I think are very extreme and probably unrealistic. The police must show "probable cause" which isn't just their personal opinion, but a belief which needs to be logical enough to sufficiently be defended in court. Furthermore, the courts must consider a balance between the interests of law enforcement vs. personal liberties. In this case, arresting anyone who visits an SP would very likely be considered too arbitrary of a test to deprive someone of their personal liberties. The bar would just be set too low to allow police to just essentially arrest anyone remotely connected to an SP. If police are allowed to go down this route, where does it end? Can police just search through the SPs phone and arrest everyone on her address book because they could be Johns? Or why doesn't the police just obtain a search warrant for review boards and arrest all the members based on their IP address?
The point I'm trying to get across is that it is possible some cops may attempt "lazy" police work and just arrest people that visit an SP. But once it is met in court, the Judge will have his say against the officers conduct and such behaviour will cease. If it continues the police and the force can be successfully sued as they should have known better. The judge will also likely be convinced that such an unfair enforcement system will lead to prejudice against the accused.
I have also heard from some of my friends in the police force that they actually aren't comfortable enforcing bill C-36 because they know it will be challenged. They said that being the officer involved in triggering the next Bedford Case isn't exactly good for their career. You guys also need to consider that there are millions of laws in the books. Every single day, each of you are probably breaking a few of them and getting away with it. Police don't have time to enforce every law all the time. They deal with what is important. In the context of bill C-36, they are the exploited, underage, and trafficked sex workers. That is where the police will score points with the public and where they will be trying to have their photo-op. Knowing that half of Canadians don't want sex work criminalized makes arresting a bunch of Johns and screwing over some willing SPs in a victimless crime a pretty fruitless endeavour.
I know that in order to "get" me, they'd have to tap my phone calls, read my email, show up at my door precisely when I have someone over, make me open the door, or break it down themselves, prove something had happened that broke the law, know that they can win in court, etc. If this is what happens, then we are really living in a police state. And we're not.
There will be some action, like a few NOW magazines getting grabbed and then the magazine going to court, some street stuff, perhaps some incall stuff, and if I'm unlucky perhaps some pressure on outcall agency owners, though I am pretty sure the folks I deal with will have their own way of protecting themselves. Perhaps some things will change. But not a lot.
Every request I make from the date of the law going into effect will include a declaration that I do not intend to purchase sexual services. No one will be able to know otherwise, let alone prove it. In fact, that IS my intention, as it always has been. I've never received "sexual services" from an escort. Everything I've posted on this forum that might suggest otherwise, is just me playing like I'm a john. It gets me off to think you guys think I see escorts for sex. I don't. I see them for the company.
Some people LIKE to get worked up over things, and they like to share their misery. I hardly even look at these threads any more. Once the law is in place we'll see what happens, until then, this is just boring now. I'm glad this thread exists to highlight the issue as it appears in the news, but all the possible comments on what might happen have now been made and nothing new will come up until the law is in force.
It seems to me just like the committee hearings it will be 3 to 4 abolitionists, evangelical groups (all by the way hoping to cash in on some of that 20 million) to every one in favor of either legalization or decriminalization. It will be another joke and facade played on Canadians by The Reform Party of Canada.The Schedule of first day for the Senate Hearings has been posted:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeB...&ses=2&Language=E&comm_id=11&meeting_id=15371
Agenda
The subject-matter of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Panel 1: 10 a.m. - 12 p.m.
Appearing
- The Honourable Peter MacKay, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Witnesses
(10:00 AM-12:00 PM)
Justice Canada
- Witnesses to follow
Panel 2
Witnesses
(1:00 PM-2:30 PM)
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
- Kim Pate, Executive Director
Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC)
- Michèle Audette, President
- Teresa Edwards, Director of International Affairs and Human Rights
Walk With Me Canada
- Robert Hooper, Chairperson, Board of Directors
- Timea E. Nagy, Founder and Front-Line Victim Care Worker
Panel 3
Witnesses
(2:30 PM-4:00 PM)
Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution
- Suzanne Jay, Member
As an individual
- K. Brian McConaghy, Director, Ratanak International
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
- Julia Beazley, Policy Analyst
Pivot Legal Society
- Katrina Pacey, Litigation Director
- Kerry Porth, Chair, Board of Directors
Panel 4
Witnesses
(4:15 PM-5:45 PM)
As Individuals
- Ed Smith
- Linda Smith
Mothers Against Trafficking Humans (M.A.T.H )
- Glendene Grant, Founder
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
- Stephanie Claivaz-Loranger, Senior Policy Analyst
- Other witnesses may follow
Looks like it's going to be a repetition of the Justice Committee Hearings, from July.
I feel the same way, I'm at the point where i"ve stopped caring... I'm just numb to it all I don't even follow the articles or news anymore and won't follow the senate hearings.. seriously.. I just don't care anymore.I think you are entirely correct. There have been cycles on these threads since the law has been changed - first everyone gets all paranoid about blackmail/arbitrary roundups/helicopters-scooping-up-johns-in-the-street, etc. and then a few level headed people bring things back into perspective. Then a lull, then more paranoia, etc. I don't bother any more, if people want to fantasize about how awful things can get, there's nothing I can do for them, and I don't really care to spend the energy on helping them out unless they are willing to pay my fee. So thanks for this. I'm waiting to see what happens, but I fully expect pretty much nothing to happen. And when/if it does, the road to the Supreme Court will open up.
I know that in order to "get" me, they'd have to tap my phone calls, read my email, show up at my door precisely when I have someone over, make me open the door, or break it down themselves, prove something had happened that broke the law, know that they can win in court, etc. If this is what happens, then we are really living in a police state. And we're not.
There will be some action, like a few NOW magazines getting grabbed and then the magazine going to court, some street stuff, perhaps some incall stuff, and if I'm unlucky perhaps some pressure on outcall agency owners, though I am pretty sure the folks I deal with will have their own way of protecting themselves. Perhaps some things will change. But not a lot.
Every request I make from the date of the law going into effect will include a declaration that I do not intend to purchase sexual services. No one will be able to know otherwise, let alone prove it. In fact, that IS my intention, as it always has been. I've never received "sexual services" from an escort. Everything I've posted on this forum that might suggest otherwise, is just me playing like I'm a john. It gets me off to think you guys think I see escorts for sex. I don't. I see them for the company.
Some people LIKE to get worked up over things, and they like to share their misery. I hardly even look at these threads any more. Once the law is in place we'll see what happens, until then, this is just boring now. I'm glad this thread exists to highlight the issue as it appears in the news, but all the possible comments on what might happen have now been made and nothing new will come up until the law is in force.
Over the last few months , i've been building up a repoire with some good reputable sps. So i have a few "regulars" i can go to if i get lonely.
Police budgets come from municipalities. If the mayor doesn't see a positive cost benefit, or the police are not interested in carrying out the mayor's political agenda (clean up the streets, so to speak), the mayor can reduce the budget. Police don't like that, nor any organisation that operates on limited resources.Police spend a lot of time (too much time for the rest of us) operating radar traps, when the key to road safety is not just speeding but operating according to the rules of the road. They should be on the road monitoring road rage, following too close, unsafe lane changes, talking and texting on cell phones etc. But that's not as lucrative as sitting there and flagging down motorists one after the other, who are not necessarily a hazard as compared to some of those other infractions.But the police is not getting a special budget to enforce this law (unless some province or municipality decides to form special units or something). Arresting clients will be more a waste of time and money for the police. Each guy gets fined 500$ but that money doesn't go directly to the police. Though I think in the case of john schools the fees go to the police and organizations who run it. The only reason they would want to apply that law is if they get instructions from the city to crack down on johns. I think most LE will not bother changing how they operate now.
The problem with your position is that you make perfect sense. However, Bill C-36 does not. Yes, the majority of cops have a sense of what's right and what's wrong. But they have to uphold the law, especially when they are told to get on with it.I've read a lot of stuff in the last few posts that I think are very extreme and probably unrealistic. The police must show "probable cause" which isn't just their personal opinion, but a belief which needs to be logical enough to sufficiently be defended in court. Furthermore, the courts must consider a balance between the interests of law enforcement vs. personal liberties. In this case, arresting anyone who visits an SP would very likely be considered too arbitrary of a test to deprive someone of their personal liberties. The bar would just be set too low to allow police to just essentially arrest anyone remotely connected to an SP. If police are allowed to go down this route, where does it end? Can police just search through the SPs phone and arrest everyone on her address book because they could be Johns? Or why doesn't the police just obtain a search warrant for review boards and arrest all the members based on their IP address?
The point I'm trying to get across is that it is possible some cops may attempt "lazy" police work and just arrest people that visit an SP. But once it is met in court, the Judge will have his say against the officers conduct and such behaviour will cease. If it continues the police and the force can be successfully sued as they should have known better. The judge will also likely be convinced that such an unfair enforcement system will lead to prejudice against the accused.
I have also heard from some of my friends in the police force that they actually aren't comfortable enforcing bill C-36 because they know it will be challenged. They said that being the officer involved in triggering the next Bedford Case isn't exactly good for their career. You guys also need to consider that there are millions of laws in the books. Every single day, each of you are probably breaking a few of them and getting away with it. Police don't have time to enforce every law all the time. They deal with what is important. In the context of bill C-36, they are the exploited, underage, and trafficked sex workers. That is where the police will score points with the public and where they will be trying to have their photo-op. Knowing that half of Canadians don't want sex work criminalized makes arresting a bunch of Johns and screwing over some willing SPs in a victimless crime a pretty fruitless endeavour.
The problem with the law being too broad and too vague is going to be its application and enforcement. It will be uneven, thus unjust, given the amount of zeal of certain police officers, or a political agenda that is pushed on police services. Where does it end? with judges blasting police officers and crown prosecutors for overzealous prosecutions, violating the accused's charter rights, and declaring a law unconstitutional. That is what restrains the zeal of certain police officers and prosecutors.
And one thing is certain: assuming you get acquitted of breaking what will become Bill C-36, and you think the officer did not have probable cause, you will NOT get compensated. That's doesn't happen in Canada... only in the movies.
Police do all kinds of things, including illegal searches, such as the type you describe like going through a SP's phone and her address book (and it's going to get interesting if they do that since prostitutes will always be deemed innocent; how do you manage to force a search on someone who you are not going to charge?). Your only protection against that is after the fact, when the judge throws it all out because police actions violated your rights. But in the meantime, it costs you a lot in money and social stigma. Bogus charges and expensive defences happen quite frequently in the firearms world, due to police and prosecutorial ignorance, or political prejudice. This isn't the movies.
Will I continue to hobby? Certainly. But I will take some steps to mitigate the risks of breaking the criminal code. I will also not vote Conservative (ever again), regardless of their modifying the Firearms Act.
True, but giving speeding tickets or arresting drunk drivers is relatively easy. The evidence is usually very clear and the procedure is straightforward. Prostitution is much more tricky, complex and unpleasant to police. Poorly conducted police activities can be dangerous for the workers and could have serious implications in courts...Police spend a lot of time (too much time for the rest of us) operating radar traps, when the key to road safety is not just speeding but operating according to the rules of the road. ...
Moreover the dangers of speeding or drunk driving are scientific facts. People understand why we have these laws and why the police do this. Prostitution laws are based on moral and public support is much lower.
For these reasons, I think enforcing prostitution laws is not a walk in the park for the police
This is really a poisoned gift the government is giving the police. The broader the laws, the easier it is to get the bad guys. But it is left to them to set the bar. If they don't go hard enough, abolitionist will give them shit; if they set the bar too low they are certain to get in trouble with the judges.The problem with the law being too broad and too vague is going to be its application and enforcement....
Don't forget that this is a very minor infraction. It's not like being accused of being serial rapist or terrorist. It's not going to cost all your life savings to get a lawyer and it won't drag for 5 years. It's more like being accused of drunk driving. Many people are arrested and get their cases dismissed and their life goes on same as before. We are not in the US where they will post you picture on billboards even before you go to court.And one thing is certain: assuming you get acquitted of breaking what will become Bill C-36, and you think the officer did not have probable cause, you will NOT get compensated.
Prostitutes are not guilty of anything, but still involved in a crime. Police can surely get a warrant if they think she's in possession of some evidence. For all intent and purpose of this law they are treated as incompetents, like a child or mental defective.(and it's going to get interesting if they do that since prostitutes will always be deemed innocent; how do you manage to force a search on someone who you are not going to charge?).
I think this explains why http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Harper-Evangelical-Mission/I still didn't get it why evangelical groups are invited to the parliament ? Do we live in a country where church and state are separate or do we live in a in a theocracy where church acts as the adviser of the government ? This doesn't look any better than countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
and as Wilbur stated none of us who use paid services should vote for The Reform Party of Canada because it is being run by lunatics and ideological imbeciles!
. But I will take some steps to mitigate the risks of breaking the criminal code. I will also not vote Conservative (ever again), regardless of their modifying the Firearms Act.
The Media has outed Johns here in Ontario who have been arrested during a raid and found in what they claimed to be a bawdy house. You would need to pay a lawyer to defend yourself as well as explaining to family and friends why you were arrested. It's not a walk in the park, bill C36 should not be taken lightly and as Alan Young has already stated, the right case will have to be chosen to take to the Supreme Court. I don't think a client just being charged can easily past mustard in front of the SCC.This is really a poisoned gift the government is giving the police. The broader the laws, the easier it is to get the bad guys. But it is left to them to set the bar. If they don't go hard enough, abolitionist will give them shit; if they set the bar too low they are certain to get in trouble with the judges.
Don't forget that this is a very minor infraction. It's not like being accused of being serial rapist or terrorist. It's not going to cost all your life savings to get a lawyer and it won't drag for 5 years. It's more like being accused of drunk driving. Many people are arrested and get their cases dismissed and their life goes on same as before. We are not in the US where they will post you picture on billboards even before you go to court.
It's possible some clients would be leaked by media. But each year, big cities arrest hundreds of clients of street hookers and I have never seen their identities in the media. Like any crime, you are presumed innocent and nobody will know you were arrested unless you tell them (except the wife, who it would be hard to hide it from). Like I say, it's a very minor criminal offense and a lawyer for that would probably not cost that much (relatively speaking), especially if police have no evidence. So, getting arrested would be unpleasant and somewhat costly, but most probably would not change my life.
It's possible some clients would be leaked by media. But each year, big cities arrest hundreds of clients of street hookers and I have never seen their identities in the media. Like any crime, you are presumed innocent and nobody will know you were arrested unless you tell them (except the wife, who it would be hard to hide it from). Like I say, it's a very minor criminal offense and a lawyer for that would probably not cost that much (relatively speaking), especially if police have no evidence. So, getting arrested would be unpleasant and somewhat costly, but most probably would not change my life.
The main reason I beg to differ is because examples will be needed and pushed for by the Federal Government. Keep in mind too Toronto will be getting a new police chief and we do not yet know where he will fall on this issue. The hobby is going to be a patch of mine fields laid out by our not so friendly Reformers.
Apart from making the law, I'm not convinced the federal government actually has much to say in the enforcement. They cannot tell provinces how to run their police force. In fact, provincial government could order their prosecutors not to apply the law if they so choose. I could be wrong, but I don't think Harper has any authority to ask for results.
If he decided to invest a large budget specifically for enforcing prostitution laws across Canada, that would be a different story. Then he could have a say on how that money should be used. But it is extremely unlikely, as he only announced a symbolic 20M$ over 5 years for social help. This is a patch job in prevision for election. I'm convinced he doesn't want result; that way he can blame the liberal judge and police chiefs for the failure in the eradication of prostitution.
But I agree, it's hard to predict and I can't wait to see what provincial governments will say once the law is passed.
If he decided to invest a large budget specifically for enforcing prostitution laws across Canada, that would be a different story. Then he could have a say on how that money should be used. But it is extremely unlikely, as he only announced a symbolic 20M$ over 5 years for social help. This is a patch job in prevision for election. I'm convinced he doesn't want result; that way he can blame the liberal judge and police chiefs for the failure in the eradication of prostitution.
But I agree, it's hard to predict and I can't wait to see what provincial governments will say once the law is passed.
I've seen a few mention that the Conservatives don't really mean what this law is intended to do, they are only appeasing their base but this article back in 2007 clearly states the Reform Parties position on prostitution and it has it's finger prints all over this bill http://canadasprostitutionpolitics.blogspot.ca/Apart from making the law, I'm not convinced the federal government actually has much to say in the enforcement. They cannot tell provinces how to run their police force. In fact, provincial government could order their prosecutors not to apply the law if they so choose. I could be wrong, but I don't think Harper has any authority to ask for results.
If he decided to invest a large budget specifically for enforcing that law, then he could have a say on how that money should be used. But it is extremely unlikely, as he only announced a symbolic 20M$ over 5 years for social help. This is a patch job in prevision for election. I'm convinced he doesn't want result; that way he can blame the liberal judge and police chiefs for the failure in the eradication of prostitution.
R e p e a l i n g C a n a d a ' s P r o s t i t u t i o n L a w s?
In early 2007, the Parliamentary Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws released a report entitled “THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGE: A STUDY OF CANADA’S CRIMINAL PROSTITUTION LAWS”. The committee was comprised of 6 MPs, including 2 members of the Conservative Party, 2 members of the Liberal Party, 1 member of the Bloc Québécois and 1 member of the New Democratic Party. This study was the second attempt since 2003. The Subcommittee reviewed relevant literature and heard testimony from approximately 300 witnesses at public and private hearings and meetings across Canada from January 31 to May 30, 2005.
The committee had difficulty arriving at a consensus. Representatives from 3 or the 4 political parties felt that repealing all of Canada's prostitution laws were a reasonable option:
"Members from the Liberal, New Democratic, and Bloc Québécois Parties are of the view that sexual activities between consenting adults that do not harm others, whether or not payment is involved, should not be prohibited by the state." (ch.7.C)
The Conservative party members were the only members of the committee that were not in favor of repealing the laws:
"Unlike other parties, the Conservatives do not believe it is possible for the state to create isolated conditions in which the consensual provision of sex in exchange for money does not harm others. They believe that all prostitution has a social cost, and that any effort by the state to decriminalize prostitution would impoverish all Canadians — and Canadian women in particular — by signalling that the commodification and invasive exploitation of a woman’s body is acceptable." (ch.7. D)
The committee unanimously agreed on the following points:
-The commercial sexual exploitation of minors and trafficking in persons is unacceptable
-The status quo for prostituted persons in Canada is unacceptable
-Criminal laws pertaining to prostitution are unequally applied in Canada
-There is an urgent need for legislation and programs
-There is a need for further research and data collection
I think they mean business and in Peter Mackays warped mind he really believes he will put an end to the world's oldest profession.
Of course this stance is not new. I think Harper would rather die than be the one to decriminalize prostitution. But they are politicians first and foremost and this is a very minor issue in the big scheme of things. I think they have much bigger fish to fry and nothing to gain by going on a crusade. He has to justify his new law with some strong rethoric. But once the law is made and the honor is safe, I don't think he will waste any more effort on that. They send their little message, they make their little law to please their base and then they will let it die a slow death.
If this is so, then Harper's strategy if fraught with danger. 20% of male Canadians have reportedly bought sex in their lifetimes (in a recent survey, 10% of males admitted to it, while another 10% refused to answer). You could also assume that 20% of core male conservative party voters also bought sex in the past. This is likely an intense polarizing and wedge issue, making voters decide who they are going to vote for based on a issue they have at heart. My guess is that the Conservatives are going to lose a lot more votes than they are going to gain from the feminists and females at large. I think it's ominous about the mood of the country that, despite Justin Trudeau waffling on just about every single policy issue, and not being a very eloquent speaker, he and his party remain in the lead in the polls. Banning the sale of sex will produce a silent but big minority with a big axe to grind.Of course this stance is not new. I think Harper would rather die than be the one to decriminalize prostitution. But they are politicians first and foremost and this is a very minor issue in the big scheme of things. I think they have much bigger fish to fry and nothing to gain by going on a crusade. He has to justify his new law with some strong rethoric. But once the law is made and the honor is safe, I don't think he will waste any more effort on that. They send their little message, they make their little law to please their base and then they will let it die a slow death.
Older report by Kinsey found that about 69% of males buy sex at least once in their life. In those days clients were not as stigmatized as now and more likely to answer truthfully. It also depends how the question is formulated. But most do it only once or very rarely. Many might still think they’re doing something bad. Even conservative voters who are regular client might be in favor of the law. Because in their minds the law is aimed at ''real'' perverts, not themselves.
Many politicians or preacher who are publicly opposed to sex get caught in sex scandals. Some people say these are just hypocrites. Some psychologists say they really believe that sex is bad and are afraid of desires they can’t control. They want laws and religions to help themselves and others to control their dangerous impulses.
In any case, I don’t think Harper is expecting to gain new voters with this. It’s just damage control after Bedford. A sensible law about prostitution would displease his base and he can’t have that.
Many politicians or preacher who are publicly opposed to sex get caught in sex scandals. Some people say these are just hypocrites. Some psychologists say they really believe that sex is bad and are afraid of desires they can’t control. They want laws and religions to help themselves and others to control their dangerous impulses.
In any case, I don’t think Harper is expecting to gain new voters with this. It’s just damage control after Bedford. A sensible law about prostitution would displease his base and he can’t have that.
It's a question of what a prostitute & prostitution actually are, not what i call them. If the lady i'm seeing is not a prostitute but an SP & the time spent with her involves no prostitution, then we are not subject to the laws re prostitution.You can't hide behind definitions to get away with it. It doesn't matter if you call a prostitute an SP, or a service worker, or an escort or a crisis counsellor.
If all SP's in Canada became pay for the company, rather than for the sex act, SP's, then Canada would be prostitution free & the Tories would have their wish.
If, for example, i pay for a SP's "diner & a movie" offer at XYZ dollars, do you think LE has anything against me that will stick? I may even have an email as evidence that this is what i booked. And i expect she would back that email up with testimony in court, in the extremely rare event (one in a billion chance) this ever went that far, saying that no sex occurred.
Even if i slipped her additional cash while on the date for "something extra special", LE won't have a clue. It would only take a minute at the beginning of a session with an SP to discuss our agreed upon "story" in the extremely unlikely event of a LE "intervention". If the SP has no personal data re the client to cough up under "arm twisting tactics" from LE, then that is one less concern for her customers.
BTW it is practical M.O.'s to reduce risk, such as with the above example, that i am looking for.
LE's only hope of an arrest leading to a conviction is through coercionary & deceitful tactics where they try to intimidate weak, ignorant people into a confesion, thererby fucking themselves. Or via a raid to catch one "in the act". Or undercover means mentioned below. Dealing with an experienced savy hobbyist, they will run into a break wall, a dead end & a waste of their time.
But my money will be given for time and/or company, not sex. So called "sexual services", whatever that is, may not even be involved or be in the plans and is certainly never guaranteed even when it is expected.What has changed is that giving money for sex is going to be illegal, even if you leave the money on the table in an envelope, even if you didn't utter one word about it;
How are LE going to know whether or not money was given or "sexual services" occurred? Are they omnipresent or with Superman's powers to see through walls? An undercover officer present pretending to be a SP is easily avoided by dealing only with known SP's.
" "Bylaw violations are the best way to crack down on the illegal outfits, given the burden of evidence required to charge someone under the prostitution laws."
“You almost have to be in the room and see it or find it when the person is engaged in the act, so that’s pretty hard,” said Det.-Sgt. Belgrade."
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/0...-number-of-erotic-massage-centres-in-toronto/
1] If so then the Tories will have criminalized the vast majority of sexually active Canadian males.Of course, proving it is another matter, but it leaves a lot of possibility when comes time to get charged. The law is so broad that technically, if you give taxi fare to a one night stand, you will be breaking the law.
2] I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing the courts overrun with cases like that. The chance of ever seeing even one? One in a trillion? At those odds should i be worried?
It doesn't matter if the law is unjust, there are going to be some LE that are going to be very aggressive with it, until the SCC strikes it down. That's because police budgets have to see a return on investment, and only going after traffickers is not going to yield much results, as was the case a few months ago when there was a province wide sweep of known massage parlours and individual SP premises.
1] Give me a sec to consult my crystal ball re the future....it tells me history repeats itself, LE enforcement of prostitution laws in Canada has been extremely rare & lazy. They simply don't have the funds to allocate the resources & many top brass don't support an aggressive approach or the laws, anyway. So there is little to be paranoid about.
Odds of having an interaction with LE in this regard: one in a million "dates", more or less, with some variance depending on the province? Odds of being arrested: one in a billion. Odds of a conviction? One in a trillion. Odds of conviction + prison time [i.e. free room & board courtesy of Harper]: one in 100 trillion. Should i be scared? Give up the hobby? Spend the rest of my life patheticly wanking at home alone? Bow down on my knees to Heil Harper's rule of terror & intimidation?
2] Perhaps if LE devoted more attention to multi million dollar busts with loads of cash and lucrative drugs involved, they'd be getting more bang for their buck?
3] John school's have been bringing them in some loonies from those who were ignorant enough to get caught. Fines under the new law will catch some more suckers who get nabbed & pay them. Though LE have a reputation for not showing up in court for cases re certain violations [e.g. traffic], thereby letting the alleged offenders off scott free.
"....in Vancouver with soliciting sex from a prostitute.... Of those who plead not guilty, only 12 percent are actually convicted."
"Few men are sentenced to jail, and community-service workers complain that the men are routinely discharged by the courts."
http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/vancouver_96/straight-960801.html
"Critics say the school allows johns to pay their way out of serving time in jail. But in Vancouver, at least, johns aren't spending much time in jail anyway. Instead, police have been working to divert prostitution actitivity away from residential areas of the city without making arrests...."
" "We've learned that putting these offenders in jail doesn't help the problem," says Chambers."
http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/vancouver_98/westend-980702.html
Wrong unfortunately. The law does not even contain the word prostitution. It doesn't matter is she's an escort, a hairdresser or your wife; if you exchange sex for some financial compensation it is a crime in any circumstances, no matter if the money is for a specific service or a specific duration or whatever.It's a question of what a prostitute & prostitution actually are, not what i call them. If the lady i'm seeing is not a prostitute but an SP & the time spent with her involves no prostitution, then we are not subject to the laws re prostitution.
Still, as you say it is very difficult to prove anything and the police are completely left to decide what they think is a sexual service.
Simply put, around December this year 99% of Canadian males will be criminals according to the strict word of the law. It will be up to the police to decide which ones they will bother to arrest. The old laws were the least enforced criminal laws ever and I agree the new one will be the same.
