It's what the government THINKS (and/or HOPES) what will happen, despite empirical and anecdotal evidence to the contrary (prohibition doesn't work).
Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.
- Thread starter Toronto`s Finest
- Start date
I know of an SP who used MFF's website services in the past. I would hope that she can notify them of ways to C36-proof their advertising, if they are interested.
Same goes for SPJ and MPASquared who are on top of things.
Always interested, I am fully booked with this month with helping and making changes. Watch for Kate's hon. You will like it,
I had a C-36 Enactment session with Jennifer McQueen today lol. We talked about it. I think she should call you too.
(I miss Kate, so will check her site out too and see her before December 6th for sure lol).
I have a plan for her site too. Just have not reviewed it with her. Mirage kind of monopolies one time. LOLI had a C-36 Enactment session with Jennifer McQueen today lol. We talked about it. I think she should call you too.
(I miss Kate, so will check her site out too and see her before December 6th for sure lol).
Again, if everybody knows what is really being sold, then a jury will understand just as well as your clients. The law is not a crossword puzzle. Tacit understanding is not that hard to prove to a human jury.
Your lawyers are likely advising you on what would stay clear of the advertising law, but I once money changes hands it won't really be difficult for the crown to prove what was being paid for.
Lots is Smart Alec's in the US who thought "I just paid for her time, she volunteered the blowjob for free" would get them off the hook have criminal records now.
Great stuff. There are a LOT of ladies that need education and guidance on this issue.
Providers and customers alike, need to brush up on their constitutional rights, if they ever have to deal with LE, and learn not to be bullied or intimidated.
There is legal precedent set already in some terms like the acronyms, GFE etc. NOT IN COMPANIONSHIP. That as already been determined to mean COMPANIONSHIP, a court needs more then that to convict on a sexual service charge of any type.
Plus, it is FACTS that get you convicted, not someone's lack of knowledge of the LAW and therefore their own assumptions as to what certain things apparently mean.
ON WHAT??? What evidence will they actually physically have to establish what is being sold? WTF do you think they need to set up stings for? Because they can't prove money changed hands for sexual services ANY OTHER WAY.
But whatever, you will believe what you want in your own little world, the rest of the normal smart and sane people will live in the land of reality.
Thanks, I have to go nap now.
You underestimate the ability of the police to gather evidence.nope they won't assume... they will look for evidence and they will be sadly disappointed ... in fact any evidence will work perfectly in my defense.
throwing sand in your face now
For example, they can get the testimony of another client who had purchased sex, and use that in combination with other circumstantial evidence to persuade a jury that the $250 was not really for pleasant conversation.
The other client will be providing testimony against a variety of SP's as part of a plea deal, in exchange for a conditional discharge, agreeing to cooperate with a police investigation, etc., they can also subpoena the SP herself and force her to testify under oath on penalty of perjury.
The police are good at what they do. The only question really is how often they decide to work on these cases.
Again, assume that a jury will figure out whatever the people booking actually expect. Unless people booking really genuinely do not expect sex that will not be much of a defense.
Me moving won't:
A) make the law unenforceable
B) cause me to stop correcting you
It is reasonable to speculate how much energy the police will put into enforcing the law, and the answer will be different between Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Calgary. This is true in the US as well, the level of enforcement in San Francisco is pretty different from enforcement in Florida. Though it is a difference of degrees, both jurisdictions run periodic operations against prostitution, but differ in frequency and scale.
It is dangerously misleading to think there is some get out of jail free card, some magical words to say, some clever trick you can use, to evade prosecution in the event the police decide to run a sweep.
A) make the law unenforceable
B) cause me to stop correcting you
It is reasonable to speculate how much energy the police will put into enforcing the law, and the answer will be different between Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Calgary. This is true in the US as well, the level of enforcement in San Francisco is pretty different from enforcement in Florida. Though it is a difference of degrees, both jurisdictions run periodic operations against prostitution, but differ in frequency and scale.
It is dangerously misleading to think there is some get out of jail free card, some magical words to say, some clever trick you can use, to evade prosecution in the event the police decide to run a sweep.
Fuji, many SPs in the States offer companionship for a fee. Whatever else happens is between two consenting adults. The Technical Paper by our own government cites a case in which natural affinity was a defense against 'sexual services for consideration', even when it was advertised!
Another case held that the phrase “sexual services for consideration” is not intended to apply to consensual actions between those having an affinity towards one another.[30]
[30] R v Leo, [1993] 147 AR 161 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), appeal against conviction dismissed by Alta. CA and SCC, without reasons.
Everyone should read the Technical Paper and the Backgrounder
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html#edn30
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p4.html
I quickly skimmed over these documents. It's enlightening and in some ways ENCOURAGING.
The Backgrounder's intent seems to focus on pimps and bad johns who abuse or exploit SPs. SPs are also allowed to carry on as usual and are immunized from prosecution unless they communicate near the presence of children.
Unless there's a complaint, or an SP is out to get you, I doubt you will be a target of LE.
The Technical Paper's discussions also appear to lend some credence that the SCC may find C-36 unconstitutional.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html#edn30
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p4.html
I quickly skimmed over these documents. It's enlightening and in some ways ENCOURAGING.
The Backgrounder's intent seems to focus on pimps and bad johns who abuse or exploit SPs. SPs are also allowed to carry on as usual and are immunized from prosecution unless they communicate near the presence of children.
Unless there's a complaint, or an SP is out to get you, I doubt you will be a target of LE.
The Technical Paper's discussions also appear to lend some credence that the SCC may find C-36 unconstitutional.
That's the United States of America, not Canada. (I cited one defense in Canadian jurisprudence). And you are moving to the States?
Half or a 3rd of that number are probably SPs, and their population is 10 times ours.
So divide by ten or whatever. The point really was to destroy this claim that these laws are somehow unenforceable. They are enforced all the time. US courts work on similar standards to Canadian courts, if US DA's can get convictions, so can a Canadian crown.
How much effort the police put into these cases is the only real question.
