Fucked up, or implicitly legislating further harassment, persecution and leverage to snare their new public enemy number one - the john.
Opinions, Please.
- Thread starter Willow Samoan
- Start date
They would lose their business forever, especially in a C-36 world, if she truly turns on him. So it's a double-edged sword.Seem pretty bad for clients. If the providers turn on you. You are in deepshiet.
Not quite right.
At the end of the day, providers have immunity against PROSECUTION of the advertising offence if the ad concerns selling their OWN sexual services. [Section 286.5 (1) (b)]
As I've explained in my post # 36, they would be committing the advertising offence (286.4) in the first place, but ultimately can't go to jail for that due to the separate immunity provision. HOWEVER, there's an implication that they can still be arrested or charged
Fixed my own post. Meant to write 'prosecution' not 'prostitution' (see correction above).
Any provider does that would know that it's her last day in the business cause it would be out as public record and no client would want to deal with her unless there is a violent crime like rape or something similar happened to her where most of the hobbyist will support her once it's clear that she isn't lying or doing it for any other malicious reasons.Seem pretty bad for clients. If the providers turn on you. You are in deepshiet.
Cooperation? remember when SPs were pissed at LE when they were showing up at the door of established SPs to look for underage girls? Remember that policeman who was having free sex with prostitutes in exchange of his silence? A large number of Ottawa LE are assholes and I don't think they will change with the new law. Schools are everywhere and SPs could be charged for offering prostitution near kids: LE still have a lot of leeway to still behave as assholes with the new law.Pls see my post 46. Anyway, I thought that in Ottawa we already have a very strong cooperation b/w providers and LE.
Under new law, providers can easily oust their clients as the providers are immune from prosecution, no?
What are you talking about? Why would an SP oust a legitimate client? SPs are in the business of attracting clients and make money, they are not in the business of ousting people. If you are a legitimate client you should not be worried any more with the new law as long as you know the SP is a legitimate SP and not a police bait or extortionist. Stick with the knows SPs or agencies and you are safe.Under new law, providers can easily oust their clients as the providers are immune from prosecution, no?
Even though providers are immune from prosecution there will still be police records for SPs that will stay with them, if a SP wrongfully reporting too many clients she would be charged for misreporting, fraud and even extortion, so it's not very rosy for SPs either.
True.What are you talking about? Why would an SP oust a legitimate client? SPs are in the business of attracting clients and make money, they are not in the business of ousting people. If you are a legitimate client you should not be worried any more with the new law as long as you know the SP is a legitimate SP and not a police bait or extortionist. Stick with the knows SPs or agencies and you are safe.
Even though providers are immune from prosecution there will still be police records for SPs that will stay with them, if a SP wrongfully reporting too many clients she would be charged for misreporting, fraud and even extortion, so it's not very rosy for SPs either.
I may be wrong here, but it would seem like a dangerous idea for both the clients and SP's to discuss any form of sexual services before money is paid. Both parties could be busted if either one is a LE.
I feel like with the new law coming in, calling to book will be a much better option. There's no trail, and anyone can deny a conversation that took place or say someone called for you if asked.
But again, and maybe I'm wrong, the clients should be safe enough continuing in the way they were before, just be extra careful who you choose to pursue.
Perhaps to further bolster what you say here, I posted some info on the burden of proof for telephone calls in the Challenged thread.
Last edited:
Hypothetically-speaking. A big IF. Still, why would she do this?You are right about them lose their business forever. But if she quits permanently for whatever reasons or LE have some leverages on her then the last thing she would worry is about her business, no?
If this is a big concern then don't let an SP know your real world identity. Use a burner phone when contacting her.You are right about them lose their business forever. But if she quits permanently for whatever reasons or LE have some leverages on her then the last thing she would worry is about her business, no?
This isn't a new risk, we clients have always run the risk that a vengeful SP could contact our SO's and for many the resulting divorce or blow to the relationship would be worse. Additionally LE and courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard much higher than SO.
And there is the rub. If you stick with only the same old same old (not a bad thing), then you are correct. However, given that many of us like variety, Jason is bang on that we are at a HUGE risk that doesn't exist right now.What are you talking about? Why would an SP oust a legitimate client? as long as you know the SP is a legitimate SP and not a police bait or extortionist.
I've ventured into BP, Quest and others and there are many risks and pitfalls that I've fallen into and have actually been saved because of LE being fair and diligent. Will this remain or will the tables turn completely? It sounds to me like we're screwed.
They could bring in just about any provider under the extremely broad "services near children" provision. Once inside, they could give them a choice - be charged and probably win, but still have to deal with the wasted time, court fees, etc. Or, hand over your cell phone for 15 minutes and then walk out the door. Once armed with the numbers and text messages, LE could send out a general "Please be aware that this number has been found in association with suspected procurement of sexual services, which are now illegal..." text. They could also share the numbers with other agencies, so that the next time you try to cross the border you're denied entry due to a possible prostitution connection. CBC did some stories recently about how just about any interaction with LE goes on file, and can come back to haunt you years later at border crossings, government job hirings, etc.Hypothetically-speaking. A big IF. Still, why would she do this?
None of this would cost much in the way of time or money, but would throw a big chill into the "hobbyist" community.
You mean merely having my # in an SPs contact list or logs could be shared with U.S. Immigration who can deny me entry, when there's no other evidence of a session or that I even saw her or spoke to her?They could bring in just about any provider under the extremely broad "services near children" provision. Once inside, they could give them a choice - be charged and probably win, but still have to deal with the wasted time, court fees, etc. Or, hand over your cell phone for 15 minutes and then walk out the door. Once armed with the numbers and text messages, LE could send out a general "Please be aware that this number has been found in association with suspected procurement of sexual services, which are now illegal..." text. They could also share the numbers with other agencies, so that the next time you try to cross the border you're denied entry due to a possible prostitution connection. CBC did some stories recently about how just about any interaction with LE goes on file, and can come back to haunt you years later at border crossings, government job hirings, etc.
None of this would cost much in the way of time or money, but would throw a big chill into the "hobbyist" community.
(Point taken about using arrests to coerce or gain leverage for access to information, which leads me to my next question. Regardless of the SEPARATE immunity provisions under Bill C-36, it is unlawful for even sex workers to post explicit ads or receive material benefits. So while they may not go to jail for the latter offences, can they still be arrested or charged? Can those arrests be expunged/charges dropped, based on the ultimate immunity provisions, or can they stick, since those respective offence provisions do not specifically exclude SPs? My concern here is in regards to their harassment if not coercion to give up info, under the threat of such non-convictable arrests or charges.)
The Toronto Star ran an expose on the data sharing earlier this year:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/24/420000_in_police_database_never_convicted_analysis.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/24/420000_in_police_database_never_convicted_analysis.html
