Response to Bill C36

[Art Mann]

Far too early to conclude the sky is falling

Paranoia is useless. Caution is wise. That does not change.

The same thing as you did before - do your research, stick to the well-regarded and respectfully-run agencies, be discreet, avoid the street scene, and enjoy yourself...

That's what smart clients already do . . . focus on the TT&T (Tried, Tested & True) agencies and indy ladies. The biggest at-risk group will be newcomers to the sex industry, both clients and SPs, who likely will lack knowledge and infrastructure to navigate the scene wisely and safely.

... It's not like the cops want to waste their time chasing after internet sites and review boards anyways - they'll keep focusing on exploitation and trafficking, just as they were before. They'll go after the low-hanging fruit, like the curb-crawlers, they're not interested in decent daytime clients. . .

The internet has greatly reduced the public nuisance factor, thereby helping make the general public less critical of the escort business. Unfortunately, street trade continues to exist, and Bill C36 does not appear to make life any safer for disenfranchised women who may not even have web access. As for guys who prowl the streets ... if cops are busting them it takes heat off smart clients.

The newspapers are already mobilizing their lawyers to challenge this provision under Canada's freedom of speech laws. As long as prostitution remains legal, it's a violation of our freedom of speech to make advertising illegal. This provision is probably the least worrisome of them all, because it's the one that's the most obviously unconstitutional.

Newspapers are the "respectable corporate voices" whose legal challenge should carry the day on this issue. They are better financially positioned to do this than indies and agencies. No longer just newsprint on pulp in this digital age, the media will ensure freedom of expression also applies to the internet.

By my reading, agencies will not be safe.. particularly related to the "advertising" and "procuring" provisions... as well as the "communicating" (phone girls)

At some point, unfortunately, if the legislation passes, someone or some agency will be the fall guy on this issue and forced to go to court. He, she or they will become the next Terri-Jean Bedford, a public face defending personal rights.

That is an option until the laws are overturned once again. This could be a 3 - 5 year wait for it to get to the Supreme Court once again. The more important thing is how the police will handle this. Will they choose to enforce the new law when passed just to make a point or will they ignore it as they have been doing with the present laws. . . .

The "low-hanging fruit" will allow police to make a point. The real issue: how many points for how long, and who will get hurt along the way.

In the meantime, smart clients will patronize the Tried Tested & True indies and agencies, who in turn will value their Tried Tested & True clients.

 

[Art Mann]

Speaking about LE after the bill is passed, I am thinking of voting for Rob Ford if he intends to slash the Toronto Police budget. . .

Hmmmm . . . middle of the night, end of the bottle?

I too have occasionally posted comments which cause me to cringe in the sober light of day.

 

[Madman]

Art, even if we stick to the tried tested and true it doesn't prevent us from being caught up in a raid at an incall location.

The government has succeeded in removing the good "pervert johns" as the hopefully soon to be ousted Justice Minister refereed to us (perverts) out of the equation.

 

[User-E]

Newspapers are the "respectable corporate voices" whose legal challenge should carry the day on this issue. They are better financially positioned to do this than indies and agencies. No longer just newsprint on pulp in this digital age, the media will ensure freedom of expression also applies to the internet.

I agree. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds in the media.

 

[Art Mann]

Art, even if we stick to the tried tested and true it doesn't prevent us from being caught up in a raid at an incall location.

Avoid any incall that invites attention,
especially if there's a school nearby:

But we already to that, don't we?

 

[dreamblade]

How a bill becomes a law in Canada


Still, being idle and expecting others to do the fighting will benefit no one. If you can, please do something. Here's a handy guide on how to get involved:
https://media.wix.com/ugd/177062_3fcb6a02663c48488d13f76bf86b9971.pdf

Also, Maggie's, a longtime respected sex worker resource organization is running an Indigogo funding campaign. Please consider contributing, even if it's $20
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/...rkers-with-maggie-s-sex-worker-action-toronto

 

[Swede]

Thankyou for the guidance and advice. Much appreciated.

 

[FineWineDiva]

This is not a final bill; it's an opening bid in a political process. Some provisions in there will be things the government really wants to make happen, but some will be stuff that's there purely to be negotiated away so that the government can claim they're being reasonable. Yes, the government has a majority... but negotiations will still take place and compromises will happen
Now, if the placing of an ad is a crime... well, that's enforceable. But will LE have the resources and inclination to actually enforce it? Maybe, but that depends on the LE in question. And that only applies if ads stay the way they are today... if advertizing sexual services is illegal, then we simply do what's already common in the US: "Money exchanged is for time and companionship only (nudge, wink)." Problem solved: no sex advertized, no law broken. It would be hard pressed to follow for most LE agencies due to limited budgets and manpower.

 

[Littlefinger]

This is not a final bill; it's an opening bid in a political process. Some provisions in there will be things the government really wants to make happen, but some will be stuff that's there purely to be negotiated away so that the government can claim they're being reasonable. Yes, the government has a majority... but negotiations will still take place and compromises will happen
Now, if the placing of an ad is a crime... well, that's enforceable. But will LE have the resources and inclination to actually enforce it? Maybe, but that depends on the LE in question. And that only applies if ads stay the way they are today... if advertizing sexual services is illegal, then we simply do what's already common in the US: "Money exchanged is for time and companionship only (nudge, wink)." Problem solved: no sex advertized, no law broken. It would be hard pressed to follow for most LE agencies due to limited budgets and manpower.

I agree with VC. The industry will adjust and move on. The ads will look a bit different, we may need to speak in code a bit more. I'm bringing a chess set with me wherever I go and if the police drop by I just have a nude chess club and am engaged in a passionate match of wits and skill.

 

[FineWineDiva]

I agree with VC. The industry will adjust and move on. The ads will look a bit different, we may need to speak in code a bit more. I'm bringing a chess set with me wherever I go and if the police drop by I just have a nude chess club and am engaged in a passionate match of wits and skill.

Dam , Now I need to go learn to play chess , ahhhh unless you speaking of my breast lol

 

[Jasper]

People are saying don't worry because the law won't survive a Constitutional test?
Seriously?

In the meantime there will be arrests and people will get criminal records - of course we should be concerned.
I think some big name agencies will be targeted to get headlines and send a message that they mean business.
Make sure you let your MP know you find this law unacceptable for starters, make some noise about the issue.

 

[Allegra Escorts]

Wow, good to hear a lot more rational responses over here, I gave up on the red board because there were so many whiny wussies complaining!

Even though the previous laws were struck down due to a constitutional challenge, that's not even going to be necessary for them to be invalidated this time around. All it will take is for the first person charged with an offense to plead not guilty on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional, and as soon as the court rules in their favour, that creates a judicial precedent that invalidates all other charges. There are lawyers across the country just waiting for the opportunity to do this, because it will save them the arduous process of launching a challenge. Once the very first court looks at it and strikes it down, that'll be the end of it; even if the government appeals (which they probably will) there's no chance any crown attorney will bring further charges forward because they know the justice will suspend proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.

Truth be told, clients were already running a risk by seeing escorts before the challenge, because being "found in" a bawdy house already carried similar legal penalties as the new laws against purchasing sexual services. Not much has changed. Besides, the lack of definition in the term "sexual services" suggests an invalidation simply on vagueness alone; a law that can be struck for being vague or ambiguous is a law that carries no penalty whatsoever. Will strip clubs become illegal because they're too close to churches or schoolyards? Will strip club owners be arrested for advertising because they have signs outside their locations? These laws are so ridiculously broad that they'll never survive in their current form, and they'll either be struck down by the courts, or changed before they get passed.

Will there be risks associated with hobbying if these laws are passed? Of course - but there always were. Stay away from Backpage, avoid anything that looks like a setup, try not to discuss details over the phone, and use discretion. Just as you did before.

One other point; the police will not be especially interested in wasting resources on any sort of "show of force" especially after the law is invalidated. Maybe elsewhere, but not in Toronto - their entire sex crimes unit has all of three people in it. Are they going to chase down people based on IP addresses and vague email communications? Of course not.

People might not know this, but shortly after the Justice Himel's decision, Toronto Police stopped arresting people for any of the provisions, because they knew they couldn't get convictions while the laws were being challenged. Do police want to waste their time and energy on charges that won't ever make it to court? Of course not. They'll focus on trafficking and underage exploitation, just as they did before, and just as they should be now.

I'm glad there's more sense over here on this board than the red board, the Chicken Littles over there are becoming very tiresome and sound incredibly whiny. Most clients aren't the type to let a moralistic government tell them what they can and can't do with another consenting adult, so I'm surprised to see that kind of sentiment from so many others. I would have expected more people to laugh at the stupidity of the government, instead of running and hiding like scared little boys.

The USA has had a much worse system than Canada for quite some time, and yet guys still manage to hobby successfully down there - the claims on the red board about having to leave the hobby, the nonsensical blame for the applicants in the court case (instead of blaming the Conservatives that a shameful number of clients actually voted for) and all the bitchy complaints that sound like, "Boo hoo, we can't have sex anymore" are really tiresome, and almost pathetic. You guys are men! Self-aware, often-successful, intelligent men! You can figure out a way around stupid laws that make no sense that nobody respects or wants to enforce anyways. Quit acting like whiny little bitches, stop letting bible-thumping losers tell you what to do, and go out and do what you please; just do it smartly and wisely and you'll be fine.

The only thing stopping you from hobbying is your own irrational fears - if you were that weak-willed and cowardly, you wouldn't have started hobbying in the first place.

 

[Allegra Escorts]

(Sorry if I sound harsh, I'm just blowing off some steam - I know a lot of you are worried about what this all means, and I hope that a bit of time and reflection assuages your fears a bit. Apologies if I offended anyone with my previous rant).

 

[Anto]

Wow, good to hear a lot more rational responses over here, I gave up on the red board because there were so many whiny wussies complaining!

Even though the previous laws were struck down due to a constitutional challenge, that's not even going to be necessary for them to be invalidated this time around. All it will take is for the first person charged with an offense to plead not guilty on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional, and as soon as the court rules in their favour, that creates a judicial precedent that invalidates all other charges. There are lawyers across the country just waiting for the opportunity to do this, because it will save them the arduous process of launching a challenge. Once the very first court looks at it and strikes it down, that'll be the end of it; even if the government appeals (which they probably will) there's no chance any crown attorney will bring further charges forward because they know the justice will suspend proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.

Truth be told, clients were already running a risk by seeing escorts before the challenge, because being "found in" a bawdy house already carried similar legal penalties as the new laws against purchasing sexual services. Not much has changed. Besides, the lack of definition in the term "sexual services" suggests an invalidation simply on vagueness alone; a law that can be struck for being vague or ambiguous is a law that carries no penalty whatsoever. Will strip clubs become illegal because they're too close to churches or schoolyards? Will strip club owners be arrested for advertising because they have signs outside their locations? These laws are so ridiculously broad that they'll never survive in their current form, and they'll either be struck down by the courts, or changed before they get passed.

Will there be risks associated with hobbying if these laws are passed? Of course - but there always were. Stay away from Backpage, avoid anything that looks like a setup, try not to discuss details over the phone, and use discretion. Just as you did before.

One other point; the police will not be especially interested in wasting resources on any sort of "show of force" especially after the law is invalidated. Maybe elsewhere, but not in Toronto - their entire sex crimes unit has all of three people in it. Are they going to chase down people based on IP addresses and vague email communications? Of course not.

People might not know this, but shortly after the Justice Himel's decision, Toronto Police stopped arresting people for any of the provisions, because they knew they couldn't get convictions while the laws were being challenged. Do police want to waste their time and energy on charges that won't ever make it to court? Of course not. They'll focus on trafficking and underage exploitation, just as they did before, and just as they should be now.

I'm glad there's more sense over here on this board than the red board, the Chicken Littles over there are becoming very tiresome and sound incredibly whiny. Most clients aren't the type to let a moralistic government tell them what they can and can't do with another consenting adult, so I'm surprised to see that kind of sentiment from so many others. I would have expected more people to laugh at the stupidity of the government, instead of running and hiding like scared little boys.

The USA has had a much worse system than Canada for quite some time, and yet guys still manage to hobby successfully down there - the claims on the red board about having to leave the hobby, the nonsensical blame for the applicants in the court case (instead of blaming the Conservatives that a shameful number of clients actually voted for) and all the bitchy complaints that sound like, "Boo hoo, we can't have sex anymore" are really tiresome, and almost pathetic. You guys are men! Self-aware, often-successful, intelligent men! You can figure out a way around stupid laws that make no sense that nobody respects or wants to enforce anyways. Quit acting like whiny little bitches, stop letting bible-thumping losers tell you what to do, and go out and do what you please; just do it smartly and wisely and you'll be fine.

The only thing stopping you from hobbying is your own irrational fears - if you were that weak-willed and cowardly, you wouldn't have started hobbying in the first place.

Well I'll be dammed, thanks for opening my eyes.

 

[lovelatinas]

Wow, what am I to do now if it becomes a bill?.

There is Nevada, Amsterdam and New Zealand where pooning is legal.

 

[Jasper]

the nonsensical blame for the applicants in the court case (instead of blaming the Conservatives that a shameful number of clients actually voted for)

:good:
Right on!

 

[lovelatinas]

(Sorry if I sound harsh, I'm just blowing off some steam - I know a lot of you are worried about what this all means, and I hope that a bit of time and reflection assuages your fears a bit. Apologies if I offended anyone with my previous rant).

Your comments are refreshing from the other board. Besides this just the Conservative pushing their moral agenda to get more votes in the next election. Also a tactic to make the opposition (Liberals and NDP) look like sick perverts when they oppose the bill. And perhaps a weapon for the Conservatives to catch a few Liberal and NDP MPs in the act, because we all know a few of them do see escorts. They are probably the ones Harper want to make an example of, not the average John. An arrested Liberal MP for buying sexual services, would surely deflect attention away from the senate scandal in the next election.

 

[lovelatinas]

Hmmmm . . . middle of the night, end of the bottle?

I too have occasionally posted comments which cause me to cringe in the sober light of day.

:rofl!:

 

[FineWineDiva]

An arrested Liberal MP for buying sexual services, would surely deflect attention away from the senate scandal in the next election.

Now that all they need .... to shut them up.
If they can catch Rob Ford with a crack pipe in hand , someone sure can get pictures of a couple politicians out with an escorts . That put things on a back burner

 

[Jasper]

Now that all they need .... to shut them up.
If they can catch Rob Ford with a crack pipe in hand , someone sure can get pictures of a couple politicians out with an escorts . That put things on a back burner

There are sex workers who have seen top Conservative politicians but it would ruin the escort's lives if they went public with the evidence.