New definition needed from the Supreme Court

[Czar]

Apparently, bill c-36 says that it is up to the SCC to decide what is a sexual service.

Some on here have stated that in other areas such as child abuse, even very small things can be considered as sexual. And rightly so.

But....I think we need to have a case before the SCC that asks for a new definition of sexual for consenting adults. And that would be......

Anything involving oral sex or intercourse. Bodyslides etc would not be covered and would become legal no matter what law was passed.

How do we go about getting a new definition specifically about this by the SCC?

 

[fuji]

Elect a government that agrees with you and get it legislated.

 

[stay]

Please don't let the female-SO/wife in on the debate because slipping the tongue to another women is considered a sexual service.

 

[corrie fan]

An SP I used to see told me that some of her clients only wanted to play with her feet. Is this a sexual service?

 

[stay]

An SP I used to see told me that some of her clients only wanted to play with her feet. Is this a sexual service?

It may very well be if he is yankin on his pecker at the same time. To each their own.

 

[Terminator2000]

Apparently, bill c-36 says that it is up to the SCC to decide what is a sexual service.

Some on here have stated that in other areas such as child abuse, even very small things can be considered as sexual. And rightly so.

But....I think we need to have a case before the SCC that asks for a new definition of sexual for consenting adults. And that would be......

Anything involving oral sex or intercourse. Bodyslides etc would not be covered and would become legal no matter what law was passed.

How do we go about getting a new definition specifically about this by the SCC?

the government doesn't care about your opinion. and even if you made a poll or a petition. the government will manipulate the findings to suit their own purposes and opinion. they have done it before.

 

[tegR]

Dangerous defeatism I say.

Who the fuck is the SCC or the government or anyone to be defining consensual acts between adults as arbitrarily naughty or nice? Giving up your freedom in slices is still giving it up.

If they brought in Sharia would you ask them to redefine chopping off your hand to only include 3 fingers? I'd keep all ten thanks and grip them around the nearest rifle. Extreme example I know lol.

 

[Czar]

Defeatism is doing nothing. Time to get the SCC to rule.

The government has played their card and if Justin gets in power, he ain't about to just go ahead and repeal it as political calculation takes precedence. So lets bypass the politicians.

 

[rhuarc29]

And that would be......

Anything involving oral sex or intercourse. Bodyslides etc would not be covered and would become legal no matter what law was passed.

Seems like a somewhat arbitrary place to draw the line. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that to some of the alternatives, but it could be argued that anything sexually stimulating in exchange for money is a sexual service. Or anything involving sexual contact (including bodyslides) is a sexual service. Or, as you said, oral or intercourse is a sexual service...I notice you leave out handshakes there, presumably to go along with your bodyslides, eh? lol

The point is, the problem isn't how we define sexual services, it's that we (well, our politicians) are focusing on sexual services AS the problem...when the real problem lies elsewhere.

 

[corrie fan]

Maybe the reason the politicians did not define sexual services is that sex is a subject they know very little about and they don't want to know about. Some years ago there was a politician in London who was quite proud of the fact that he didn't know the difference between strip clubs and massage parlours.

 

[Titalian]

Maybe the reason the politicians did not define sexual services is that sex is a subject they know very little about and they don't want to know about. Some years ago there was a politician in London who was quite proud of the fact that he didn't know the difference between strip clubs and massage parlours.

Must stem from home life !

 

[GPIDEAL]

Apparently, bill c-36 says that it is up to the SCC to decide what is a sexual service.

Some on here have stated that in other areas such as child abuse, even very small things can be considered as sexual. And rightly so.

But....I think we need to have a case before the SCC that asks for a new definition of sexual for consenting adults. And that would be......

Anything involving oral sex or intercourse. Bodyslides etc would not be covered and would become legal no matter what law was passed.

How do we go about getting a new definition specifically about this by the SCC?

The government speaks about this somewhat in their Technical Paper.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html

 

[oldjones]

Apparently, bill c-36 says that it is up to the SCC to decide what is a sexual service.

Some on here have stated that in other areas such as child abuse, even very small things can be considered as sexual. And rightly so.

But....I think we need to have a case before the SCC that asks for a new definition of sexual for consenting adults. And that would be......

Anything involving oral sex or intercourse. Bodyslides etc would not be covered and would become legal no matter what law was passed.

How do we go about getting a new definition specifically about this by the SCC?

As has been stated in almost every thread about this law and every TERB thread about every Supreme Court decision on other topics: The Supremes do not 'volunteer' their opinions out of the blue. Only the feds can ask the Court for a ruling that is not an appeal of an actual, real case; they rarely do and haven't asked about C36.

That leaves the usual way of getting new, specific definitions: appealing a conviction because the one that was used was 'wrong'.

Good luck. Hope you're as tough and stubborn and last as long as Bedford.

As others have said, voting for a better government that made better laws would be another option, but it's a bit too late for that now.

 

[TeasePlease]

Anything involving oral sex or intercourse. Bodyslides etc would not be covered and would become legal no matter what law was passed.

That's not how it works. Anything is "legal" until it is declared to be illegal. No do you see the problem with making the purchase of "sexual service" illegal?

 

[Viggo Rasmussen]

Incalls were always illegal and terb helped us break these laws.

Ignore the new laws as we always did, and please stop voting for more of them.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Incalls were always illegal and terb helped us break these laws.

Ignore the new laws as we always did, and please stop voting for more of them.

Terb didn't really help you break those old laws; rather, maybe it assisted both sides of the equation to find a loophole (don't habitually or frequently use one location for it to become a 'bawdy house').

 

[bobcat40]

Of all the things I think are wrong with bill C-36, defining a sexual service isn't one of them. Case law has already provided tests on how Courts should interpret if a something is prostitution - basically if an "sexual act" was performed for money. There is just no way for the law to define what is a sexual service in all instances. It just won't be realistic for the law to have an appendix with a list of blowjob, handjob, intercourse, fetish abc, etc. It would be too rigid to have any real purpose. I believe case law already has a test whereby if a random bystander saw the act take place, would they believe the act to be sexual. While obviously subjective, I think it does represent a reasonable starting point for the courts to make a determination. Similar tests are made for sexual assault whereby the test is whether or not the victim felt the assault was sexual in nature. People need to realize the law is rarely black and white in the criminal realm. That is only the case for regulatory law like speeding. For criminal law, there only must be sufficient enough precision so that someone would reasonably know what is legal and illegal behavior. I think most people selling a sexual service know they are selling it.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Maybe the reason the politicians did not define sexual services is that sex is a subject they know very little about and they don't want to know about. Some years ago there was a politician in London who was quite proud of the fact that he didn't know the difference between strip clubs and massage parlours.

I realize that your comment is tongue-in-cheek but the reason they left it blank is to make it broad, and because it is already defined by the courts to some degree. Their technical paper even includes an example for self-masturbation in a room with a woman sitting across from you.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Of all the things I think are wrong with bill C-36, defining a sexual service isn't one of them. Case law has already provided tests on how Courts should interpret if a something is prostitution - basically if an "sexual act" was performed for money. There is just no way for the law to define what is a sexual service in all instances. It just won't be realistic for the law to have an appendix with a list of blowjob, handjob, intercourse, fetish abc, etc. It would be too rigid to have any real purpose. I believe case law already has a test whereby if a random bystander saw the act take place, would they believe the act to be sexual. While obviously subjective, I think it does represent a reasonable starting point for the courts to make a determination. Similar tests are made for sexual assault whereby the test is whether or not the victim felt the assault was sexual in nature. People need to realize the law is rarely black and white in the criminal realm. That is only the case for regulatory law like speeding. For criminal law, there only must be sufficient enough precision so that someone would reasonably know what is legal and illegal behavior. I think most people selling a sexual service know they are selling it.

I agree.

 

[Viggo Rasmussen]

Terb didn't really help you break those old laws; rather, maybe it assisted both sides of the equation to find a loophole (don't habitually or frequently use one location for it to become a 'bawdy house').

No loopholes involved, simply laws that weren't being enforced.

Every single escort or agency that hosted an incall was breaking the law all these years and we supported them. So I'll quietly continue breaking the law without changing my ways in the same spirit.