New definition needed from the Supreme Court

[GPIDEAL]

Must stem from home life !

Prudes (if I may borrow a term from Fuji).

 

[GPIDEAL]

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.

Ok, I was speaking more about indies. Still, Terb didn't break the law per se.

You will be fine if you don't attract attention to yourself or see an unstable or unreliable gal, or royally piss off a gal.

 

[TeasePlease]

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.

But isn't that the problem? The terminology is so vague that it isn't clear, and the door is left open for the same service to be "ok" in one jurisdiction yet prosecuted in another. We in Toronto (and Montreal and Vancouver) should benefit from this, but perhaps not in Kitchener or Halifax.

Also, most people might know they are selling a sexual service, but not everyone would admit it. For example, Body Rub Parlours would insist that they are not selling a sexual service. They are selling full body rubs (which include particular attention on your penis).

 

[Siocnarf]

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.

I agree that it would be ridiculous for the law to define what a sex act is, because it can really be just about anything. The problem is that like in a case of sexual assault, the only persons who can really judge are the ones involved. The opinion of an average bystander seems relevant for cases of obscenity that happen in public, but for something private I don't feel comfortable having random people decide if what I do is a sex act or not.

Also, most people might know they are selling a sexual service, but not everyone would admit it.

True. And also, according to this new law, the seller is not competent to decide her own actions. So how can she be competent to recognize if what she's doing is a sex act?