C36 Merged thread, everything goes here

[Porscha]

How would things be affected if the "consideration", was not exchanged at session?

Maybe not even on the same day. Say I went for coffee with my regulars on Tuesday (expensive coffee lol), and they came to visit me on Friday?

I could make that work, but legally is there a difference in the end?

 

[Fullhouse]

Gee, Man Mountain, very detailed information. --- Thanks.------- You seem to have a great handle and understanding of these crazy C-36 laws.

Would you be willing to let me hire you as my lawyer if/when they catch me breaking these fuc*ing laws ???????

 

[westwoody]

legally is there a difference in the end?

No difference at all, legally there is still a transaction taking place.

 

[newatit]

Gee traveller that video brought back a lot of memories

 

[Theloop]

Question. What is the law regarding..

What is the law regarding purchasing sex in massage parlours? & where can this be found?

Thanks

 

[morementum]

you forgot one tiny thing... the criminal record

Not a biggie unless you want to ever leave Canada, get a job or obtain any financial vehicles for home ownership or similar.

 

[Fullhouse]

What is the law regarding purchasing sex in massage parlours? & where can this be found?

Thanks

Look at post #198, by Man Mountain

You'll find all you want to know about the new C-36 laws.

The following I copied from his post:

Obtaining sexual services for consideration

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of,..................

The key word ------------- ANY PLACE

 

[huggzy]

I thought so too until I saw how you and I could have two such vastly different interpretations of the same legislation.



Again, I completely disagree with your interpretation here. First, I will repost the exact excerpt that we are discussing:



You will note that within the legislation, there is a section for an "indictable offence" and a section for "an offence punishable by summary conviction". This makes this particular code what is called a "hybrid offence". For clarification on the differences between these, see the following:

http://www.justicebc.ca/en/cjis/you/accused/understanding_charges/types_of_offences.html



So, if someone were charged under section 286.1, as a hybrid offence, it would be up to Crown Counsel to decide whether to try that case as a "summary process" or as an "indictable process".



Actually, the "worst case scenario" would be Crown Counsel decides to try the case as an indictable offense where:



The subset of scenarios that follow that are for "minimum punishments".



Any opinions about what enforcement of these laws may or may not be after December 6th is pure speculation at this point. Obviously, some members believe that there will be minimal enforcement. Others (myself included) are simply going to proceed with far more caution, if we proceed at all. I really don't see this as a right or wrong thing. It's simply about risk evaluation and comfort levels for each individual.

You make it sound like these laws weren't in place before and no precedents have ever been set. There was a time not too long ago where cops used to bust johns in stings and guess what - all they did was send guys to "john school" and impose some fines on them. No record. No courts. Do you really think this is going to be any worse when there is already precedents?

From your quotes above:

"How the Crown decides or elects to treat the offence generally depends on how serious the offence is"...

So how "serious" do you actually think the crown is going to take your action just because you walk into a sting and engage in a conversation about exchanging money for sexual services with a consenting SP? This level of "seriousness" is going to be as low as its going to possibly get in the list of offences that all this "new" legislation is targeting.

You can go on about that its all "speculation" and list off all the options the crown could possibly take but the reality that you will undoubtedly discover soon since you aren't concluding it for yourself is that you aren't going to be indicted nor go to jail for engaging in an act that has been all but decriminalized for years and many still question could be contrary to people's charter rights. Its not going to happen. You might get a fine if you're unlucky enough to walk into a sting much like they used to do on the streets 20 years ago.

There's nothing wrong with "wait and see". Not at all. But all this fear mongering that is going on is absolutely retarded. I get that many of the women in this industry are probably quite nervous because they're all young and weren't around when law enforcement attempted to prosecute pooners before (with very little success) but some of the experienced gents who have been around the block once or twice really ought to know better.

 

[tonysmithvictoria]

Royal assent ?

I know the laws have been passed but are not law yet because of the formality of royal assent ... When does that take place? Is it a crime before royal assent ?

 

[Fullhouse]

You make it sound like these laws weren't in place before and no precedents have ever been set. .

Well, huggzy, you certainly made my day this early in the morning - and I'm all smiles.

Now I can quit worrying about getting my mug plastered all over the front page right next to take8 easy, under the headline of:
"Double handycapped (mental & physical) wheel chair ridden senior citizen arrested for a hybrid offence under the new C-36 laws"

How would I ever exlain that to my grand, grand kids ---- or my S.O. ????????????

I guess I could always say that I hit somebody with my hybrid wheel chair and then failed safety inspections.... I will consider purchasing one of those new hybrid cars.

So, according to huggzy, all this hype, paranoia and fear mongering about these new Bill C-36 laws are just a figment of my imagination. He makes it sound like these laws were in place before --- so, none of our pooning habits need to change.:clap2:

 

[Sonny]

I know the laws have been passed but are not law yet because of the formality of royal assent ... When does that take place? Is it a crime before royal assent ?

Royal assent was given on Nov 6. The advertising sections of the now new law came into effect immediately. The rest of the law comes into effect 30 days after Nov 6, that being Dec 6.

If the law is to be strictly enforced, the enforcement and judicial systems are ill-equipped to handle the volume. The cost would be enormous. Fines collected would not cover it.
I don't see governments spending taxpayer money on more police, prosecutors, judges, courtrooms, jails, etc. just to chase folks in consenting pay-for-play transactions.
Maybe in some small religious conservative towns where the cops have time on their hands, but in cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver?
Certainly LE will be after the bad actors involved in underage, coercion, trafficking.... but that's been there all the while.

Aside: Tourism in Vancouver would take quite a hit.... all those US pooner $$$$, also spending on shopping, meals, entertainment and accommodation.
Does City Hall want to direct their VPD to hassle that which is really not a problem at all? The list of real crimes is very long, and that's where LE effort, time and dollars will go.

 

[uncleg]

 

[Muffdiver69]

I wish they would spend their energy (LE) on things like drugs, violent crimes, robberies (especially muggings), and sexual assault on women and children, rather than on pooners.

the scary part of all what you say is i think the supporters of C36 would see no difference btwn the crimes you state and what pooners do. But what a twisted world in which we live. Medical pot stores on almost every block
Drug users not only have a union (VANDU) but have a tax payer funded place to use these (still illegal) drugs (safe injection site)

 

[uncleg]

So what happens if your wife pays for an SP to have sex with you because she doesn't want to anymore, is there a charge in there somewhere ?

 

[susi]

Royal assent was given on Nov 6. The advertising sections of the now new law came into effect immediately. The rest of the law comes into effect 30 days after Nov 6, that being Dec 6.

If the law is to be strictly enforced, the enforcement and judicial systems are ill-equipped to handle the volume. The cost would be enormous. Fines collected would not cover it.
I don't see governments spending taxpayer money on more police, prosecutors, judges, courtrooms, jails, etc. just to chase folks in consenting pay-for-play transactions.
Maybe in some small religious conservative towns where the cops have time on their hands, but in cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver?
Certainly LE will be after the bad actors involved in underage, coercion, trafficking.... but that's been there all the while.

Aside: Tourism in Vancouver would take quite a hit.... all those US pooner $$$$, also spending on shopping, meals, entertainment and accommodation.
Does City Hall want to direct their VPD to hassle that which is really not a problem at all? The list of real crimes is very long, and that's where LE effort, time and dollars will go.

vpd and the city of vancouver have already committed to not enforcing against adult consensual activities. hopefully we will not suffer and people will know they can safely poon inside the city.

love susie

 

[ezish12]

LOLZ that is so sweet.

I think the LE can get access to your phone txt messages from the service provider like Rogers, Fido, MTS, Telus etc.
But they need a warrent I think and they are not encrypted. people can get access to them if they monitor the network traffic but this will be expesive to do that. Need some technical people and manpower.
Although if you are using iMessage it's more secure. The messages are encrypted. Your network service provider doesn't have access to that but then again not everyone has an iPhone. May be we should all use WeChat (based in China) messsging service and they are also encrypted. It's similar to WhatsApp. Goodluck getting chat messages from China. WhatsApp based in California so I won't trust them. This will only work when you are communicating with one of your regulars, not someone new.

 

[ezish12]

Minimize Risk

I have a question for you guys. I read the whole thread also on other boards regarding this bill. I see some people are really scared which make sense to me. I hate the having a record on my file. I love travelling and don't want to cause an issue. Also when EB/TO OR Nevada (a MP in Winnipeg) got raided and guys were caught inside, did they get a record as well. Or they were just let go with a warning? And there is another group who thinks business will be usual. I think I am somewhere in between. So it comes down to minimize the risk as much as possible. Here is what I am thinking. Let me know if there are ways I can minimize it more.

1. See someone who I have seen before
2. When I contact her send an email asking simply to meet for 1 hour. *That's all. Nothing more in the email.
3. Meeting at a hotel room or condo.

Now the question here. She will have a ad or website somewhere. I am not replying to her ad or mentioning anything about the site or ad. Am I still at risk? Just because she has an ad somewhere. SP have friends and they communicate with them all the time. I can simply be one of them.

2nd question: carrying cash with u, that can't be a risk,,,right?. You are only handing it over in a private room with someone you trust. Will it help if I do an online transaction? Like eMail transfer or PayPal.

3rd question: Lets assume I am really unlucky and got caught as a part of a sting operation. Let's say the hotel owner called the LE or some other client when to see her made a stupid mistake and I am just happen to be the next guy. I have no explicit communication by email or txt, what type of trouble will I be in.

Let me know is there anything more I can do to minimize the risk ?

 

[Lawn boy]

Has this bill made anyone a little nervous about seeing a lady ?

 

[vancity_cowboy]

So what happens if your wife pays for an SP to have sex with you because she doesn't want to anymore, is there a charge in there somewhere ?

she'd get thrown in the slammer for procuring, wouldn't she?

now THERE'S justice for you... serves her right for not wanting to put out :thumb:

 

[westwoody]

See someone who I have seen before

That is what I will be doing. Stick with someone you know and trust.

2. When I contact her send an email asking simply to meet for 1 hour

Talk to her over the phone. Texts and emails are stored and can be retreived by others. Talk, don't write.
NOTHING IN WRITING!

Will it help if I do an online transaction? Like eMail transfer or PayPal.

Cash for sure. No transfers or PayPal.

3rd question: Lets assume I am really unlucky and got caught as a part of a sting operation

Being found in a bawdy house is a catchall charge they could use.