Changing sex is a big decision. If someone is a dude and not happy with it, then money isn't the biggest concern.
C36 Merged thread, everything goes here
- Thread starter Banger77
- Start date
Easy to recognise that quote from Hermann LOL
Not sure if the Tories are as bad as his bunch.
No, because personally I am compensated for my time and companionship only and if anything physical happens that's just between 2 consenting adults and not what money is changing hands for. However, I realize there are other ladies who do charge for specific activities and their reviews may reflect that, for example if a client says, "I opted for Greek at $100 extra" etc. The PERB admin and mods do not have the time to go through every link to every review and make judgement calls on whether or not the review explicitly says the client paid for sexual services.
So the issue at hand is whether or not an SP linking to reviews in an ad essentially makes the review part of the ad for legal purposes. I think at this point the advertising law is such new territory that PERB wants to be cautious rather than take any risks, particularly since the ads and reviews are both on the same website.
286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.
286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for
(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit is derived from the provision of their own sexual services; or
(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services.
Immunity — aiding, abetting, etc.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services.
So my personal, non-legal expert take, is that
1. SPs don't have to worry about anything as long as they post their own ads. They are not being prosecuted under this new law, just other parties doing it on their own behalf.
2. Maybe the media displaying the ads posted by SPs might be liable but every clause of the law "advertising for providing sexual services for consideration" needs to be satisfied. Easy solution - don't post a price (consideration) nor state that you are selling anything - just state activities you enjoy doing and post a phone number and leave disclosure of your price to the phone call. Thus the media you are posting in isn't breaking the law by displaying your ad
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.
286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for
(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit is derived from the provision of their own sexual services; or
(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services.
Immunity — aiding, abetting, etc.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services.
So my personal, non-legal expert take, is that
1. SPs don't have to worry about anything as long as they post their own ads. They are not being prosecuted under this new law, just other parties doing it on their own behalf.
2. Maybe the media displaying the ads posted by SPs might be liable but every clause of the law "advertising for providing sexual services for consideration" needs to be satisfied. Easy solution - don't post a price (consideration) nor state that you are selling anything - just state activities you enjoy doing and post a phone number and leave disclosure of your price to the phone call. Thus the media you are posting in isn't breaking the law by displaying your ad
Ok, since I started this thread, here is what I really think.
No matter what you think, esp you BJ. there will be an initial enforcement. In long term, they might just turn a blind eye to it because things happening between two consensual adults doesn't bother anyone, but Conservatives. Cops always enforce the law for a few days/weeks no matter what the campaign is. VPD may not do it, but I am sure RCMP will feel some strings being pulled from ppl up above. Cops have done that a lot, they enforce something for a little while to "send the message", and then life goes on as usual. There are so many examples of that. I remember cops doing that about a decade ago when they started a campaign against motorists not stopping for pedestrians on crosswalks. ( I even witnessed one such sting operation on Granville and just south of 16th. )
That is exactly what is going to happen. What you, me and other Pooners and 'Poonies" do is consensual and is done in private and cops know that it is not an easy enforcement. But there WILL BE SOME enforcement and that one unfortunate guy could be me, you or anyone of us. Many of you might not give a damn about being that guy who was at the wrong place at the wrong time, but it cant be me. Like I said in my first comment, once you are married, things change.
Prostitution is a taboo and being caught with your pants down is a stigma that will stay on one's ass for a long time. My whole point was that I freaked out (may be overreacted) when I heard 'motel'. Frankly because it would be easier for cops to set up a sting there or just to keep some motels under surveillance. That is why I think incalls are safer. Apartment buildings, condos are more ...safe and ... discrete... because they have hundreds of residents and cops would not waste their time on there. That's how I see it anyways.
Easy for all of you to make sarcastic comments and laugh about it but remember, that odd guy that police catches, could be you. I am not fear mongering but you can't be foolhardy and wouldn't hurt to ...wait and see.
Hopefully 2015 will bring us lots of fun filled, cop free, safe, C-36-less pooning and a conservative free Canada.
No matter what you think, esp you BJ. there will be an initial enforcement. In long term, they might just turn a blind eye to it because things happening between two consensual adults doesn't bother anyone, but Conservatives. Cops always enforce the law for a few days/weeks no matter what the campaign is. VPD may not do it, but I am sure RCMP will feel some strings being pulled from ppl up above. Cops have done that a lot, they enforce something for a little while to "send the message", and then life goes on as usual. There are so many examples of that. I remember cops doing that about a decade ago when they started a campaign against motorists not stopping for pedestrians on crosswalks. ( I even witnessed one such sting operation on Granville and just south of 16th. )
That is exactly what is going to happen. What you, me and other Pooners and 'Poonies" do is consensual and is done in private and cops know that it is not an easy enforcement. But there WILL BE SOME enforcement and that one unfortunate guy could be me, you or anyone of us. Many of you might not give a damn about being that guy who was at the wrong place at the wrong time, but it cant be me. Like I said in my first comment, once you are married, things change.
Prostitution is a taboo and being caught with your pants down is a stigma that will stay on one's ass for a long time. My whole point was that I freaked out (may be overreacted) when I heard 'motel'. Frankly because it would be easier for cops to set up a sting there or just to keep some motels under surveillance. That is why I think incalls are safer. Apartment buildings, condos are more ...safe and ... discrete... because they have hundreds of residents and cops would not waste their time on there. That's how I see it anyways.
Easy for all of you to make sarcastic comments and laugh about it but remember, that odd guy that police catches, could be you. I am not fear mongering but you can't be foolhardy and wouldn't hurt to ...wait and see.
Hopefully 2015 will bring us lots of fun filled, cop free, safe, C-36-less pooning and a conservative free Canada.
Geez you guys. Do any of you actually read the law:
Commodification of Sexual Activity
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,
(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or
(ii) in any other case,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,
(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or
(ii) in any other case,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000.
So if you're not buying or actually doing the act in a public place (or heaven forbid, near a playground or a schoolyard) then the worst that can happen to you is that you'll get a $500 fine for the first time and a $1000 fine for any other time thereafter.
Demand your ticket and leave if you happen to get busted but even that's not likely going to happen unless you're frequenting with girls who look underaged or in places where women could be getting trafficked (ie. amps) and get caught in a sting. Cops aren't going to monitor normal girls just to dole out $500 tickets - it would cost them more to do that than the revenue they would bring in.
Commodification of Sexual Activity
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,
(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or
(ii) in any other case,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,
(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or
(ii) in any other case,
(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000.
So if you're not buying or actually doing the act in a public place (or heaven forbid, near a playground or a schoolyard) then the worst that can happen to you is that you'll get a $500 fine for the first time and a $1000 fine for any other time thereafter.
Demand your ticket and leave if you happen to get busted but even that's not likely going to happen unless you're frequenting with girls who look underaged or in places where women could be getting trafficked (ie. amps) and get caught in a sting. Cops aren't going to monitor normal girls just to dole out $500 tickets - it would cost them more to do that than the revenue they would bring in.
I agree. It's one thing to be paranoid, it's another to fully indulge in that paranoia and try to convince everyone else that they should be ultra fearful now.
It seems like people are forgetting or weren't aware that many activities surrounding prostitution were already illegal prior to the recent bill. For example it was illegal to "communicate for the purpose of prostitution in a public place". This meant that if you talked to someone about exchanging sexual services for money (or "other consideration") and that occurred in a public place you were committing an illegal act. A "public place" was vaguely and broadly defined as "any place to which the public has a right of access or that is open to public view". This could include on a pay phone or on cell phone if you weren't in private, in a car on a street or in a parking lot, a bar, restaurant, hotel lobby, in a massage parlour if you weren't inside a private massage room, etc. Some sources even said a "public place" could include the (public) internet, such as asking an SP on an internet forum, "What is your rate for XYZ?" (XYZ being a sexual act).
My points are that many of the posters who are now freaking out probably broke the old law and that a law merely existing doesn't mean that everyone who breaks that law is going to be arrested and prosecuted. It depends on if/how that law is enforced, and even if it is it depends on if there is any evidence that one has broken it and if you get caught. One can avoid risk completely by not breaking the law at all. But being seen going into the apartment building or hotel of a sex worker is not illegal. Visiting or even having sex with a sex worker is not illegal. Sex workers have friends and even have sex with people for free. There would have to be evidence that you paid or tried to pay for sex and LE would have to actually catch you doing so. Personally I think if you want to be cautious you could just see reputable independent indoor SPs who are clearly of age and not discuss sex acts for money - paying someone for companionship or giving them money as a gift is not illegal. If one no longer feels comfortable seeing any SPs/escorts/companions that's fine, but a lot of people need to mellow out on the fear mongering.
Wow BadgerJohn, what a bunch of crap your trying to pull to make your post look like it was in jest.
Whatever little respect I had for you on here, has gone down the shitter quicker that a used condom.
You added the first line at 1:47 pm. to your original post that you wrote at 10:53 am.----I copied and pasted your original post at 11:50 am, and it's in post #35.
I guess you didn't like my reply, so you tried to cover up by adding the top line...........What a classless act. ! ! ! !
I may be an ass, but I would never stoop so low as to paste stuff into any one of my posts to make me look better.
Over and out.
Peter MacKay is laughing
When I look at the amount of paranoia demonstrated in some of the threads, I suspect that Peter MacKay is having a good laugh, because Bill C-36 is stopping some "perverts" from enjoying the sexual services of some ladies. Mission accomplished, in part.
I would like to see some legal beagles explore the possibility of the Conservative Party being accused of terrorism under the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 83.01 is pretty broad in its definition of terrorism and includes an "act for a political, religious or ideological purpose". Even though Bill C-36 is an act of Parliament, the motive for the act qualifies as political, religious or ideological. The harm done by the act (not admitted by the Conservatives) clearly falls within the terms of the terrorism act.
It seems to me that an astute individual could make the case for the Conservative Party using Parliament to commit a terrorist act.
Just my two cents - or is it a nickel in today's economy?
When I look at the amount of paranoia demonstrated in some of the threads, I suspect that Peter MacKay is having a good laugh, because Bill C-36 is stopping some "perverts" from enjoying the sexual services of some ladies. Mission accomplished, in part.
I would like to see some legal beagles explore the possibility of the Conservative Party being accused of terrorism under the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 83.01 is pretty broad in its definition of terrorism and includes an "act for a political, religious or ideological purpose". Even though Bill C-36 is an act of Parliament, the motive for the act qualifies as political, religious or ideological. The harm done by the act (not admitted by the Conservatives) clearly falls within the terms of the terrorism act.
It seems to me that an astute individual could make the case for the Conservative Party using Parliament to commit a terrorist act.
Just my two cents - or is it a nickel in today's economy?
Well said Violet. :thumb:
Continuing to use discretion as usual and not drawing unnecessary attention will rule the day.
The paranoia exhibited in this thread is way over the top. Geez people, dial it down about 30 notches.
The sky is not falling, under cover cops are not going to be hiding in the closet at an Indy's incall and we will continue pooning after December 6.
Continuing to use discretion as usual and not drawing unnecessary attention will rule the day.
The paranoia exhibited in this thread is way over the top. Geez people, dial it down about 30 notches.
The sky is not falling, under cover cops are not going to be hiding in the closet at an Indy's incall and we will continue pooning after December 6.
Paranoia on one side, don't worry on the other. Both opinions are valid. A lot has to do with a person's location. After this whole law thing became a reality, I started paying more attention to people everywhere in everyday situations. What I noticed was that people are so wrapped up in their own lives, they could care less about other people. If they don't have their heads shoved into their smartphone, they are usually preoccupied with themselves and on the go somewhere to be interested in who you are and what you are doing. Walk through a hotel lobby in a major city for shits and giggles. Pay attention to who actually looks at you. Front desk staff may, smile and nod, hell, even say hi and continue on your merry way. Go up and down the elevator, then leave. You are just another person like many others that pass by every day. Could be a good training program to combat hotel nerves. If you are really ballsy, grab a complimentary newspaper and a cup of coffee and have a seat for a few minutes in the lobby. You'll come to realize that no one cares about you and what you are doing.
Smaller centers, different story. Too many people know other people who know you. LE in smaller centers usually aren't that busy so they may focus a little more on the new law as they may have more time to check out the traveling SPs "business cards" (Backpage, Perb, etc.), coordinate something with the staff at the 4 or 5 hotels in the smaller places and voila! Maybe some legitimate concern there.
I believe it's alot like real estate. Location, location, location Common sense will prevail
Smaller centers, different story. Too many people know other people who know you. LE in smaller centers usually aren't that busy so they may focus a little more on the new law as they may have more time to check out the traveling SPs "business cards" (Backpage, Perb, etc.), coordinate something with the staff at the 4 or 5 hotels in the smaller places and voila! Maybe some legitimate concern there.
I believe it's alot like real estate. Location, location, location
Common sense will prevailEven expert opinions, (let alone non-expert opinions
), seem to differ on their interpretation of the law, when it comes to whether or not platforms that run ads for sexual services may face prosecution. I suppose it remains to be seen. But as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Department of Justice's Technical Paper on Bill C-36 - which was posted on July 7 so may be out of date - is the best source I could find so far and it states that under the (proposed at the time) bill, website administrators could be held criminally liable if they know of the existence of the advertisement and that the advertisement is in fact for the sale of sexual services, and that Bill C-36 would also also allow the court to order the ads be removed, regardless of who posted them. It's all very confusing and disturbing. If the Department of Justice's interpretation of the law stands, then it means all advertising of sexual services is effectively outlawed, with the only exception being that sex workers posting their own ads will not face prosecution. I would much rather be able to post my rates for my time/companionship and not mention any "activities I enjoy doing" (which is what I already do) than the reverse, for numerous reasons and I assume most ladies would. There is a huge rate variation in Vancouver and rates are something prospective clients really want to know, nor do SPs want to answer 100 phonecalls or emails per day from people who are just asking their rates. Plus I think it would be difficult for a website or newspaper to say they had no idea that their advertisers were charging money for their services merely because they didn't mention rates in their ads. Seems like the better idea is to not allow mention of sexual services in ads.
You're going to have to answer 100's of phone calls regardless. My 2 cents - I think it would be far easier to answer a price question for a client than rehash the entire discussion about services and restrictions with each and every customer that calls...I hate having to call and get all that detail info as a client and typically avoid calling women who don't put that detail into the ad (but that's just me).Even expert opinions, (let alone non-expert opinions
I would much rather be able to post my rates for my time/companionship and not mention any "activities I enjoy doing" (which is what I already do) than the reverse, for numerous reasons and I assume most ladies would. There is a huge rate variation in Vancouver and rates are something prospective clients really want to know, nor do SPs want to answer 100 phonecalls or emails per day from people who are just asking their rates. Plus I think it would be difficult for a website or newspaper to say they had no idea that their advertisers were charging money for their services merely because they didn't mention rates in their ads. Seems like the better idea is to not allow mention of sexual services in ads.
As far as the advertisers - this is a criminal code - therefore the onus is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If the ad doesn't state the client is selling a sex service in the ad the crown cannot prove the advertiser knows anything about the intent of the ad if the client doesn't say anything about it to the advertiser either - I don't think it would matter if the advertiser simply only suspects anything about the motive. The code specifically states "knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration "...if the SP doesn't state anything about "consideration" in the ad or to the advertiser than they cannot "know" anything.
"Marriage is just like a larval stage" - Louis CK on divorceonce you are married, things change.
If a married person participated, they already took a risk before C-36. People were and will be exposed to their families sometimes without police involvement.
It sounds like a great exercise. Also if repeated a few times, it will confuse a lot all those following you 24x7.
My sp is telling me its the norm these days, lots of nervousness on other boards as well.
Her advice is to stick with a reputable sp or service.
Not really sure what to think not really following the c 36 debate.
From my personal experience when the need is there all kind of common sense goes out the window. So most likely guys will carry on.
Her advice is to stick with a reputable sp or service.
Not really sure what to think not really following the c 36 debate.
From my personal experience when the need is there all kind of common sense goes out the window. So most likely guys will carry on.
What he said.Put out a review once in a blue-fucking-moon. Contribute to the community or F-off. Rant over.
Also included......
endangering a person's life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public.
There appears to be some significant documentation that Bill C-36 puts the health and safety of courtesans, escorts, streetwalkers, etc at risk. I will make the assumption that these people are part of the "public", although Mr. MacKay may not think so.
endangering a person's life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public.
There appears to be some significant documentation that Bill C-36 puts the health and safety of courtesans, escorts, streetwalkers, etc at risk. I will make the assumption that these people are part of the "public", although Mr. MacKay may not think so.
Harper might have the last laugh on this one, predictably McKay has gone full right wing on this legislation. Highly controversial bill which Mckay is betting his future on. If it is overturned by the supreme court and enough public sentiment is amassed against him he will be forced out of his ministerial post and become a back bench MP.
Anyone using the internet not using some form of proxy service in today's world is a bit naïve IMHO.
