An indictable offense to boot. I believe a 10 year max. That is big in lawyer $$$, even if you get off.
The owners may need to screen their employees, the ones handing out menus become a liability not an asset.
Strip Clubs Post C-36?
- Thread starter shogun89
- Start date
The owners may need to screen their employees, the ones handing out menus become a liability not an asset.
If thats the case then this bill doesnt have me worried much....
I'm a little foggy on how it would be enforced. Just my understanding based on no particular references: Prior to C-36 other than customers being found in a 'bawdy house', I thought the 'evil' act was perpetrated by the girl who would solicit her services. An undercover male cop would go into the club and bust the girl making the proposal.
Under C-36 .. the girls are innocent victims and the law goes after the customers who are corrupting/exploiting these innocent girls. If this is the case here - then male undercover cops are useless since you need to get the customer offering/giving money to the girl. It seems only a hot female undercover cop is going to catch me. The handcuffs would even take the experience to a new level.
So what am I missing ?
ummmm...are you saying that a bj in a strip club is a built in defence to Bill C-36 because the law doesn't mention it specifically? Last time I checked, a bj is a sexual service.Apparently this phrase mentions lap dancing and gives one definition of it's behaviour. Interestingly it makes no mention of other things like heavy petting, HJ ( itemized for MP only), BJ or other possible variations, so there's a built in defense right there. New precedents will need to be set for each act as well as anything alleged to be sexual in nature.
Wishful thinking my friend. I think MPAsquared's response to your comment is more informed and reasonable.Absolutely not. Just the opposite, if C36 criminalizes ONLY the purchaser and does away with collateral responsibility, the SC or any other place merely "hosting' the activity should now be completely off the hook for federal charges.
There is room for interpretation. Most SC don't sell private dances, the dancers do. The clubs core business is selling drinks & food, they also attract customers by providing an approved venue for nude stage shows (if they charge a cover that revenue can be rationalized as being for the visuals)Wishful thinking my friend. I think MPAsquared's response to your comment is more informed and reasonable.
Except in the cases of Backstage & FYEO, it's the dancer, not the establishment who sells the private entertainment and receives 100% of the payment directly from the customer.
Just make sure that all dancers who do private dances are self-employed agents and not employees, and I think there's a fair possibility that any judge who is not a strong supporter of C36 might rule that the club is not the seller or marketer of the service.
It's arguable that the club might have some side benefits from the dancer's private business activities, what about the Taxi companies who bring strippers to work? Or the Salons where they do their hair? The stores where they buy their outfits & shoes? Are they all responsible because of profiting indirectly? A person with an anti-C36 bias can choose to see SC & MP owners as neutral in this context.
Yes, it depends on each judge - some will be eager to convict anyone and anything under C36 unless the defendants can somehow prove a case of mistaken identity and whoever draws such a judge will be SOL.
But I believe other judges will have grown tired of yet another attempt to legislate adult's sex lives, or might have prejudice against C36 just for it's contemptuous disrespect in merely re-packaging many of the provision which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional just a year ago and could look for any line of reasoning to discourage its use.
Well said.There is room for interpretation. Most SC don't sell private dances, the dancers do. The clubs core business is selling drinks & food, they also attract customers by providing an approved venue for nude stage shows (if they charge a cover that revenue can be rationalized as being for the visuals)
Except in the cases of Backstage & FYEO, it's the dancer, not the establishment who sells the private entertainment and receives 100% of the payment directly from the customer.
Just make sure that all dancers who do private dances are self-employed agents and not employees, and I think there's a fair possibility that any judge who is not a strong supporter of C36 might rule that the club is not the seller or marketer of the service.
It's arguable that the club might have some side benefits from the dancer's private business activities, what about the Taxi companies who bring strippers to work? Or the Salons where they do their hair? The stores where they buy their outfits & shoes? Are they all responsible because of profiting indirectly? A person with an anti-C36 bias can choose to see SC & MP owners as neutral in this context.
Yes, it depends on each judge - some will be eager to convict anyone and anything under C36 unless the defendants can somehow prove a case of mistaken identity and whoever draws such a judge will be SOL.
But I believe other judges will have grown tired of yet another attempt to legislate adult's sex lives, or might have prejudice against C36 just for it's contemptuous disrespect in merely re-packaging many of the provision which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional just a year ago and could look for any line of reasoning to discourage its use.
I would think that clubs where a VIP charge would be more susceptible to criminal prosecution because there is a more direct business relationship as the club profits directly from the dances. I could see a counter argument comparing to motels where prostitutes work but a motel isn't solely for the selling of sex related activities....
It's arguable that the club might have some side benefits from the dancer's private business activities, ....
Overall though, I figure with all the confusion and disagreement about the bill, it would take a police big-shot trying to score political points or with an axe to grind before anything changes.
It remains to be seen how things play out but here are some thoughts.
While it is likely that C36 will be challenged in court and it may even get overturned, that is all months (if not years) away. In the meantime, the law is on the books and it could well be that some LE is directed to enforce the law with some effort. remember, the government that brought in the law may not appreciate it if it is flaunted openly (like many of us are doing now). If this is the case, Incalls and MPs may get to be a little hot for a while. How many of you want to risk an encounter with LE when frequenting an incall of MP? Sure (best case scenario), the charges may eventually be dropped when the law is challenged in court but do you really want the hassle and headache of dealing with that charge in the interim?
Maybe LE attention on "traditional" prostitution will make the SC scene more popular again. Perhaps some customers will look for high mileage dances in the belief that they are less illegal than incalls. If we get an influx of customers looking to get off in the SC scene, this could easily lead to LE increasing their attention on the SCs; especially if their reputation for mileage goes up.
It's hard to predict what will happen. However, it's probably not necessary to call someone a three-year-old because their vision of the future is different from your own.
While it is likely that C36 will be challenged in court and it may even get overturned, that is all months (if not years) away. In the meantime, the law is on the books and it could well be that some LE is directed to enforce the law with some effort. remember, the government that brought in the law may not appreciate it if it is flaunted openly (like many of us are doing now). If this is the case, Incalls and MPs may get to be a little hot for a while. How many of you want to risk an encounter with LE when frequenting an incall of MP? Sure (best case scenario), the charges may eventually be dropped when the law is challenged in court but do you really want the hassle and headache of dealing with that charge in the interim?
Maybe LE attention on "traditional" prostitution will make the SC scene more popular again. Perhaps some customers will look for high mileage dances in the belief that they are less illegal than incalls. If we get an influx of customers looking to get off in the SC scene, this could easily lead to LE increasing their attention on the SCs; especially if their reputation for mileage goes up.
It's hard to predict what will happen. However, it's probably not necessary to call someone a three-year-old because their vision of the future is different from your own.
Yes, and if a dancer asks you to go to the VIP just say "no thank you officer".Will lap dances be illegal ?
should I just watch the stage show and a few beers instead ?
Lap dances were always illegal, did u just got out of a cave? Only air dances r legal.Will lap dances be illegal ?
should I just watch the stage show and a few beers instead ?
I haven't been to a strip club in over three years. Then police never bothered to enforce it......I've seen police walk in and out of Fairbanks without bothering anyone...
hopefully they continue to not to enforce it.
hopefully they continue to not to enforce it.
lap dances are illegal for you and you will be arrested if police see a girl doing it on you. for the girl no. shes allowed to perform that on you. For the club yes, they are profitting from the sexual service "lap dance".
Its all in the new law, read it.
Its all in the new law, read it.
Good thing I quit lap dances long ago....looking at titties and drinking beer is good enough for me.
What law school you graduate from? Out-law In-law Paralegal School?lap dances are illegal for you and you will be arrested if police see a girl doing it on you. for the girl no. shes allowed to perform that on you. For the club yes, they are profitting from the sexual service "lap dance".
Its all in the new law, read it.
Give Joy Smith and Harpo a few more years . . .Even this society is not (yet) Draconian enough that not you're not allowed to cum in your own pants...
well if the parking lot at CA is any indication... there were more cars today than there were last Monday....I just drove through but seemed like business as usual IMHO
cheers
cheers
lmfaois this a joke? Are you 3 years old. I think you are too young for the strip clubs anyways...
I laughed so hard on this statement, will probably be good for a few days! Thanks a lot for the good laugh man.
I doubt they would enforce c36 against strip clubs but they could. In the senate hearings they spoke of businesses that result in sexual arousal - not even specific sex acts and strip clubs were mentioned.
I'm out for awhile when it comes to the VIP. Decided to wait and see on this one area when this all came down.
