Well, supposing the following scenario: they tell you they have reason to believe there is prostitution (or traficking) going on in a place you just left and ask what you were doing there. You can choose to remain silent, but they might decide it is suspicious and could detain you. Of course if it's all a bluff, they might not detain you. But the problem is when a policeman comes to you, you have no idea what are their intentions. A threat of being detained might intimidate many people into saying something.
Terri-Jean Bedford threatens to name names if C-36 passes
- Thread starter groggy
- Start date
:thumb: Agreed. Yep, to the vast majority of Canadians who have no knowledge of the hobby world, I rather suspect that she comes across as little more than an embarrassing joke. Too bad her place at the table was not taken by Miss Lee whose advocacy is infinitely more likely to be admired and accepted by John/Joan Q Public than that of the dom.
Even though I adore Jessica, I have no choice, but to agree with this. Just sayin :wink:same! flattered, thank you Femme.
I don't know that I would have held my temper in that room either, however. Just sayin'
Dont read too much into Wilbur's post. I suspect he watches a lot of US channels on YouTube or reads too many freeman posts on firearms forums.
You cant refuse to provide ID or answer preliminary questions if you are operating a motor vehicle, which I expect is what probably you're doing or about to do if you've been stopped in a parking lot. It's not a CC thing. Its a MVA thing. But if you run afoul of the MVA, that could lead to reasonable grounds for the constable to conduct a search of your vehicle. That's the precisely the suspiciousness you correctly raise. Cops are trained to twig to certain behaviour. Uncooperative encounters raises alarms. Tell them you were visiting a friend or having dinner. Give them your name and iD (if you're driving, you don't have a choice). If they ask who you saw and why, tell them that's a private matter. We've been through this before in the lounge. You can be a prick, or you can answer a few questions and be on your way. There's a difference between being tactful and being difficult.
Wilburs logic is odd. He thinks C36 doesn't make MPs illegal. They're not currently illegal. But, C36 includes a profiteering provision that is specifically aimed against mps. He may not be worried but many MP owners including top spas in Toronto are concerned enough to retain high buck legal and political assistance to change c36. I don't know what he knows that they don't.
As for pinning his hopes on LE and Crowns not enforcing "bad laws", he apparently doesn't understand the difference between an enacted law and a lame duck law that has been struck by the highest court in the land.
I would also agree that MP are not illegal, so long as they don't provide sexual services. Of course it is highly problematic for them. Which types of erotic massages are a sexual service? According to MacKay it will be decided by the courts. Creating this confusion is surely intentional on the part of the government. They are very clear that they don't want to tell us what is illegal and what is not. But honestly if an MP was legal under the old law (where ALL third parties were criminal) then they should be in the same situation as before. Previous case law for sexual services does not change by magic when the new law comes in effect.
The legality of MPs hung on a very narrow interpretation of prostitution, which some Mps have chosen to flagrantly violate in recent years (but, to my knowledge, none have been tested in court).
Legislation trumps case law, so long as it remains within the boundaries of the charter, etc.
But with a new law that does not add any definition of sexual service, is there any reason to believe it could be interpreted in a larger sense than before? If the government refuses to give precisions, why would the LE and prosecutors decide to change their current criteria? The law is meant to shift the burden toward demand and exploitation, but not to redefine which activities are targeted.
Did you know that I read posts as well as write them?
Your assertions are a load of garbage. Nobody mentioned motor vehicles. Nobody mentioned refusing to show a licence when driving a motor vehicle. Pedestrians do not have to show ID unless they have been charged or issued a ticket; if they ask to see your ID, ask why, and ask if there is a problem. CANADIAN lawyers will specifically tell you to politely not say anything, and it's not a good idea to lie, even if it's just to say you've seen a friend because when they ask you which room number your friend is at and you stop cooperating because it wasn't true, then you're up for more scrutiny because it will be apparent that you were not being truthful in the first place. Now you will be detained while they go inside and ask witnesses what you have been up to. Now you either keep on lying and dig yourself deeper, or look like a jerk because now you invoke your right to remain silent.
And yes, we've been through this before, but seems you have a slight comprehensioin problem. MP's are not illegal, and will not be illegal after Bill C-36 becomes law. Only if sex for money takes place inside and they have to get caught first. There are MP's that do not offer sex, so how does that make those MP's illegal? Nobody has a sign in front saying "Massage Parlour with Sex". The issue for MP's that presently offer sex is how they will continue to operate and mitigate the risk of getting charged, and that's why some have hired to legal counsel; not because they think they can change Bill C-36, unless they're prepared to spend half a million dollars and take it all the way to the highest court in the land.
The laws that were struck down are still on the books, as the SCC decision was stayed for one year. MacKay put provinces on notice that those laws still had to be enforced. But some provinces are not listening. It is easy to prove that most MP's and spas in Toronto are in contravention of the CCC, and the Toronto Police Service is not stupid: they know what's happening, and they could have cracked down years ago. Because they are not a public nuisance and there are no complaints for the vast majority of them, the police leave them alone, despite the laws on the books. Nobody can predict what's going to happen in December but I doubt we'll see Armageddon.
And by the way, what do firearms have to do with all of this?
I believe that the owner of the escort agency was nailed because he was taking a cut from SP's professional fees, thereby pimping. He should have been taking in a fixed amount for services rendered, such as advertising, booking, driver and limo services etc.
Edmonton's municipal bylaws concerning escort agencies and MP's acknowledge the 'sexual nature' of those enterprises. Sex-trade businesses need a city permit, as well as attendants and escorts, and both go through police checks as a condition of issue. They have to take a one day orientation session at municipal premises (refreshments included) in order to make them aware of legal, health and safety issues. A MP attendant has to notify the city if she intends to change employers, and MP's and escort agencies have to notify the city of the names of sex-workers they employ; sex-workers can only work at one place at a time, and there must be at least 2 attendants in a MP at all times. It would have been a great basis for new prostitution laws in Canada, as it eliminates organized crime and underaged workers. It also allowed police and bylaw enforcement officers free access to premises.
But to address your point that it's easy to charge MP's that offer sex, it's well known that Toronto has over 1000 MP's probably offering sex, and for the TPS, charging them and closing them down would be like shooting fish in a barrel. But it didn't happen.
Here it is folks, Winnipeg has already started the sweeps and caught an 83 year old in its snare.
http://metronews.ca/news/winnipeg/1...four-arrested-in-winnipeg-prostitution-sting/
http://metronews.ca/news/winnipeg/1...four-arrested-in-winnipeg-prostitution-sting/
They don't really say anything useful. Which ''prostitution charges'' are we talking about? Were the prostitutes minors? Why tell us the age of the clients but not the prostitutes? They talk extensively about protecting minors, but don't mention if the workers were minor, so I guess they were not. It looks just like a regular little sting such as we've had for the last 30 years.
It's called conflation. They are using the sweep to make a point about underage prostitution, by linking both by association. The 83 year old makes the point that there are some 'really old' dirty old men out there (Oh the horror! Think of the Childrun!). But no mention of any underage people being rescued.
I found this in the Vancouver Sun. This writer feels Jean really does have names.
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Ma...+have+reason+fear+retired/10199572/story.html
Bedford does have a list of names, compiled from sex workers across Canada, and I am told she is carefully considering which names to release and how to manage that delicate process, after the bill receives royal assent. This would shame the hypocrites who secretly go to prostitutes while publicly moralizing against sex work or vote for laws that endanger sex workers
An eye for an eye, it will make for interesting reading if it's true.
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Ma...+have+reason+fear+retired/10199572/story.html
Bedford does have a list of names, compiled from sex workers across Canada, and I am told she is carefully considering which names to release and how to manage that delicate process, after the bill receives royal assent. This would shame the hypocrites who secretly go to prostitutes while publicly moralizing against sex work or vote for laws that endanger sex workers
An eye for an eye, it will make for interesting reading if it's true.
