The first person who needs to be charged under this law is Peter MacKay right after Christmas. His only defense would be to testify in court that he is too cheap to buy his wife any presents & therefore the sex he is getting is not purchased sexual services.
Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments
- Thread starter gustave55
- Start date
That's a pretty bad article. These boxes are for street prostitution, which is only a small fraction of the whole. It has nothing to do with the legality of prostitution itself which is legal in brothels in Switzerland. And of course they tack on some bullshit about human trafficking, which is again a very small proportion and impossible to compare between countries who have different definitions of the word. Since legalization is expected to help fight trafficking it should be seen as a good thing that reported cases go up after it becomes legal.
On the other hand, it's interesting to note that Zurich (a city with less then half a million people) spent 2.6million$$$ to build a bunch of wooden boxes for a handful of street prostitutes. Meanwhile our government will convince the tens of thousand of sex worker in Canada to stop by investing 4 millions per year. 
Yes, that's right. Some people think that a police officer represents the complete judicial system. They do not. They don't have to prove anything before they arrest you; just probable cause. The Crown prosecutor does the proving, especially if he/she has a political axe to grind. Walking out of the premises of a known prostitute for no good reason could be probable cause. The cops apply another legal principle here: 'If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....... Its a duck!', especially if you assert your right to remain silent.
In the meantime, you get handcuffed, taken to the station, finger printed and photographed, stripped searched, spend a night in the slammer, pay an exorbitant amount of money to get bail, 'Honey, I'm in jail. Can you pick me up?', hire a lawyer at $700 an hour, get your name in the paper, lose your job, lose your house because you can't make mortgage payments, lose your wife because of loss of house, friends and respectability, live on edge for the better part of a year awaiting trial, go for trail and judge tosses out the case because there isn't any proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now then: don't you feel better after all that, vindicated in the knowledge that you were innocent all along? But even then, who's going to know or believe you because nobody can possible notice on the bottom of page 25 of the newspaper that you were found innocent. So much for knowing your rights. You still got punished.
I can see a number of issues concerning LE & the above opinion.
1) In order to establish "probable cause" it must be known that the client had just visited a known prostitute. How are LE going to know that a] he had just visited her & b] that she was a known prostitute (recieves money for sex). Even now many ladies ads do not qualify them as being prostitutes, but merely SP's, Service Providers, who offer company in exchange for cash. Thus they are not prostitutes, even if on most occasions their clients recieve "sex". Therefore their clients have not been with a prostitute & could not possibly have broken any law related to prostitution. Consequently there is no probable cause for a prostitution related arrest.
2) Do Canadian LE make a habit of staking out independent SP's apartments, bug the place, & nab alleged "johns" on the way out? I am not aware of there ever being a single case of it.
3) In Canada they've been known to use female police officers as undercover street walkers to try to fool clients into breaking the law re public solicitation. Savy punters have used various methods to weed out the cops without breaking the law & being arrested. I expect they will continue to do the same under the new legislation, once it is in effect. LE have not arrested customers for "probable cause" just because the client was speaking to a known street prostitute or thereafter walked away with her or even went into a known "short time" hotel or his car with her or even after they exited such a hotel after 30 minutes. If they wanted to use "probable cause" re solicitation they could have, but it has not been their M.O. re the street scene. Nor has it been their M.O. re any other type of SP employment in Canada that i am aware of. So why should they start after the new legislation is in force?
4) If under item 1 above the officer made an arrest anyway based on his opinion re "probable cause", when it was not justified, & led to consequences such as you describe, i wonder what the prospects would be for a multi million dollar lawsuit against the police force. Would you be willing to purposely risk a fine vs a huge payday? Should LE tread carefully as to who & when they make an arrest?
5) If the visitor to the SP says he was just having a "social visit" with the lady & the officer can ask her for confirmation that no sex occurred, & then the officer arrests him anyway without checking, see 4 above.
That's true, but then they would have a criminal record. To me that's worth a lot of time and money to avoid that (if they already got one they would probably prefer to plead guilty in that case). I wonder how many clients who get arrested in street stings admit guilt and how many go to court. And when they go to court how easy or hard is it to convict them. Because in that case it seems to me they have no actual evidence, even if probable cause is very strong.
They can't know for every SP, but they can have some proof for a specific SP and they could go against her clients. Same with massage parlors. If she has admitted to selling sex in a specific place in the past and a guy leaves that place, then they could have probable cause, I guess. This law is even more scary for SP, because police could target someone's clientele specificly to hurt them. Each individual client has a very low chance of getting arrested, but the police could really use it to harrass some SPs.
The point is we are in danger of having our lives ruined for having consensual sex because of an idiotic government with an insidious leader who believes in Leave it To Beaver without the beaver communities. Keep in mind we will be getting a new police chief in Toronto shortly, imagine the likes of a Fantino like chief grabbing the reigns and running with it.
4. The only way you could sue a police officer is for malicious arrest, that he had a personal axe to grind against you. There is no such thing in Canada as false arrest by a peace officer. It is virtually impossible to prove that in a court of law in Canada. Even if you won your case, there is never big settlements or judgements. For example, for a tort resulting in dismissal from your job, you may get one year's back pay, and not more. There are always people who are acquitted after a trial, and there is never any compensation for them. Only when a person was sent to prison for a crime they didn't commit, and it takes years to get that compensation. There are people in remand for a year or two awaiting trial and some do get acquitted. You're up shit creek without a paddle after you lose your house, your wife and your job.
2. There was no need to nab johns on the way out if they could simply charge anybody inside with being a found-in..... didn't even have to get caught in the act. Buying sex was never against the law; only running a bawdy house and being a found in and communicating in a public place. However, under Bill C-36, things will change. It will be illegal to communicate for the purpose of buying sex even in a private place, as well as buying sex anywhere.
Some people just don't have the money to be able to afford a defense and plead not guilty. You're talking about $20,000 in legal fees. Especially without a lawyer's advice, a lot of people don't realise the consequences of having a criminal record. No more passport, hard finding a job, can't own a firearm. Some just want to get it over with. There are ways police/prosecutors make people talk or accept to plead guilty: exaggerate the charges and accept a plea bargan to a lesser charge, go from an indictment to a summary conviction, 'go easy on you if you cooperate'. People who get arrested are under severe stress and want to do anything to reduce it and go about their daily lives. Lawyers keep on telling their clients: KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! It's your right despite what a cop tells you. Not keeping your mouth shut incriminates you and just makes it more complicated for your lawyer to extricate you from the mess you just created.
They know who is a prostitute because they have begun posing as clients in order to visit them and ensure that they are not being trafficked or pimped. It happened in Ontario a few months ago when hundreds such 'visits' occured in a coordinated sweep. Vice cop answers an ad and shows up plain clothes at prostitute's door. She lets him in and 3 other uniformed cops (with the combat gear) barge in behind him, which is frightning and intimidating to the SP. In at least one documented case, they started poking around in closets and cubbords despite the resident's objections and despite them not having a search warrant. They get the SP to acknowledge that she does engage in prostitution in order to 'protect' her. She is somewhat reassured that they aren't out to bust her, but they now have evidence they need that she is a reputed prostitute so that they have probable cause to bust exiting johns in the future, when the law changes. This is not about protecting prostitutes: the new law is about driving them out of business. Courts are not fooled by definitions or acronyms. Police collect evidence and are not the least concerned with code words on internet postings.
All this being said, the police are not likely to go out on a mass arrest binge once the law is passed. The role of the police is deterrence. The role of publicizing arrests and the spectacle of judicial procedures is to discourage others from engaging in the same thing.
Police also use civilian agents to gather evidence and these agents pose as clients; in fact, they are clients and receive services. Police in the US place bait ads in order to entrap clients; it will happen here given an aggressive police force. Many police forces go after the low hanging fruit in order to justify their budget. The whole point of the new prostitution law is to drive SP's out of business, not to be nice to them, despite the propaganda.
You can expect that some police corps will start exactly because of the new law. The law is too vague and too broad, which will lead to its uneven application. Police are under political pressure to resolve social issues that are identified by politicians, themselves influenced by particular and loud community groups. When Monreal Mayor Jean Coderre wants to clean Montreal of the 300 massage parlours, you can bet he's talking to the police chief. Police now will have the tools they need to do whatever the politicians want them to do. Certain cities will, on the other hand, not want to waste valuable police resources on moral issues.
Laws applied unevenly are subject to discriminatory practices, and eventually corruption. You cooperate and I'll leave you alone sort of thing. I expect it to be thrown out by the SCC, but not before a lot of people having been turned into convicted criminals. I'll never forgive the Conservatives on that one. Ever.
This is the main point. For me, because of this, once the law is in place I will stop. I cannot risk an arrest or a criminal record, its not worth it.
What worries me for the SPs is that the majority of clients will now be the kind of client who are not so worried about a conviction. They can say goodbye to their class of wealthy professionals and say hello to a lot more sketchy johns.
I have to say, I blame the dominatrix hoe that brought this before the SCC in the first place. It was working fine to begin with but she loooved the spotlight, and she has now ruined it for many people for years. Why would we risk arrest for a hobby that is just a fun bonus for most of us?
And it's going to keep on working fine. Police and mayors could have used the old laws to do whatever they wanted, same as with the new one. If they had wanted to bust all escort agencies and massage places they could have done it anytime. The police, at least in Montreal, seem to be very pragmatic and know they have it under control. They don't have a moral agenda here, but it can be different in other places.
I don't believe Harper even cares what happens once the law is passed. They have this rhetoric about stamping out prostitution, but I don't see any will to actually act on that. A token 20M$ for christian rescue groups and nothing for enforcement. In Sweden they really invested a ton of money in police and propaganda with their new law and they could at least pretend that they had a strong public support at the time. Here most citizens don't care.
Bedford is officially one of the plaintifs but there's a big legal machine behind that. It's done in her name, but we can't say it's all her own doing. It took 10 years for that whole case. There was no way to know we would have a Christian right madman with a majority when it was time to write a new law. It's just pure rotten luck.
"John "schools" provide a way for men to buy their way out of a criminal conviction."
http://www.walnet.org/csis/groups/swav/johnschool/johnschool.html
The hobby has always had these and numerous other risks attached to it in exchange for some normal hapiness in life. The risks have always generally been so small as to be comparable to the chances of being struck by lightning while out for a stroll on a sunny day. It is much the same if you drive a car for its convenience rather than taking safer modes of transportation that relatively suck, or pick up a stranger at a bar for sex rather than a safer wank alone at home. There's the remote possibility that the stranger you take home is a pickpocket, an identity thief, a serial killer, infected with HIV, etc
So the question is, what will change with the new law?
Will it bring in new risks that weren't there before? If so, can these be easily mitigated by adjusting one's M.O. or game plan so that one is just as safe as before the new law? Will many people need no adjustment at all since they are already well within the boundary of the law?
Some forum opinions have said, in certain regards, the new law will make things better for punters.
Some reports state that there are more clients involved in the business since the "Swedish model" of prostitution was law than before it was the law.
So is it like 4 kids told not to spit on the flowers in the garden? Until the home owner said that to them, it wasn't even in their thoughts. Now that he has advertised it, at the first opportunity all 4 go to the garden, with 2 spitting immediately & the other 2 drooling with spittle running down their chin.
What will change for Canadian hobbyists who were never seeing prostitutes but SP's all along? They answered an ad re a rate per hour of her company, not a rate per sex service. They went to an appointment, placed an envelope on a table, & never once was money for sex spoken of. This is, it seems, how clients in the USA & under Swedish type systems operate within the law. They don't visit prostitutes, but SP's, & neither engage in prostitution (handing over/recieving payment for sex). So the law has nothing on them & must instead prey on the ignorant.
All those who haven't been operating this way, both clients & SP's, may do so to be safe from the proposed new law. No matter what type of SP it is, whether MP's, indies, micros, or street strutters.
It's like buying drinks at a bar for a girl, or doing the dinner & a movie thing before going home with her. You get her company for a period of time for a price. What happens between the two of you alone in private, & whether or not it ever reaches the bedroom, is between two consenting adults. It is not illegal & none of the business of LE, Joy Smith or Heil Harper.
"Enforcement of anti-prostitution laws are always going to be hugely expensive and hugely ineffective. It's simply not going to go away, no matter how bad some people feel it should...."
"Personally I'm waiting for the industry to be taken over by clones and sexbots in the next couple of decades."
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/25/joy-smith-prostitution-must-not-be-legalized/
Unfortunately our last line of defense is a lap dog conservative loaded senate that will more than likely do Harpo and Mackay's bidding so yes I believe we're going to be in the trenches, alleyways and underground if we want to see our favorite ladies until the next successful court challenge.
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. 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; and it's not only giving money that's going to be illegal, because the law specifies that it's illegal to offer or give a consideration in exchange for sex, which could be fixing her car, fixing her teeth or giving her free rent for a month. 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. 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.
The state is going to reserve the right to regulate what happens in the privacy of your bedroom, all because of morals.
The reason we have courts is to reign in the power of police when they abuse it or have not met the requirements for conviction.
The problem is defending one's self once charged is life changing and simply put devastating all in the hopes of stopping consensual sex. I totally agree with you, all it takes is an aggressive officer who believes in God, Allah or some lady officer who idolized Joy Smith.
