C36 Merged thread, everything goes here

[Alabama Blaze]

Will moving escort adversting sites to hosts in the Netherlands be enough for sites to avoid legal difficulties when C-36 takes effect in 5-days?

How far do you think the government will go to press charges against the sites that are advertising escort services?

Will limiting ad's on escort sites to advertise "time and companionship services" be enough for escort advertising sites to avoid breaking the law under C-36?

 

[bigbreastlover]

Bill C-36 Practicalities : any advice on dos and don'ts?

There are just few days remaining before the implementation of Bill C-36 and I would like to seek the Board members advice on the ways and means to protect ourselves the best we can, while continuing to do what we usually do with an SP. I hope the members who are lawyers will share their thoughts and assist the rest of this community.

I understand there is some case law about what is meant by 'sexual service' (e.g. happy ending is considered as one but is DFK as well?), and this is probably the cornerstone of what can be done or not in the future.

I am not a lawyer but here are my own thoughts about it. Let's immagine that our phone conversations, our text messages and emails are spied, or even that a SP is a police officer:

1) From the SP side : if the SP writes, in the newspaper ads or websites such as ERS for example, that she provides a "massage" and do not specify restrictions such as greek, etc. (which would imply that FS is still included), the advertiser would not fall under the articles of the new law, am I correct? Whenever the "massage" would be charged 120hh or more, then the clients would assume that is would in fact include FS because a regular massage is usually charged 40-50$hh right?. If FS wasn't included, then the clients will not come back and look for another SP and this would be also known thanks to this board.

A side question: are ERS and perb hosted abroad so that they will be able to continue publishing threads as before until the Government finds a way to prevent access from ISPs in Canada? (which will be inefficient, as other sister sites will appear or we will be able to have access through proxy servers or Hide IP ad-ons).

2) From the client perspective :

- if we do not discuss about particular services, both orally and through our text messages or emails, or - in case the SP advertises explicitly on FS on her own (which she will still be allowed provided she does it by herself) -, if the client indicates that he wishes to pay only for companionship and/or a massage and that anything else happening would be something not retributed and between two "consenting adults", would that protect the client from being found guilty? Even though this could sound weird, could we even envisage to sign a contract with the SP stating this?

- if we do not discuss financial details and do not pay until we leave the place, there is no "retribution' so no offence, correct? Although most SPs would not accept this, I know some have fully trusted me in the past. In the same vein, if an "enveloppe" is left on a table, and "forgotten" by the client, would this be a sort of protection for him?

My two cents... maybe it's too naive?

 

[Alabama Blaze]

There are just few days remaining before the implementation of Bill C-36 and I would like to seek the Board members advice on the ways and means to protect ourselves the best we can, while continuing to do what we usually do with an SP. I hope the members who are lawyers will share their thoughts and assist the rest of this community.

I understand there is some case law about what is meant by 'sexual service' (e.g. happy ending is considered as one but is DFK as well?), and this is probably the cornerstone of what can be done or not in the future.

I am not a lawyer but here are my own thoughts about it. Let's immagine that our phone conversations, our text messages and emails are spied, or even that a SP is a police officer:

1) From the SP side : if the SP writes, in the newspaper ads or websites such as ERS for example, that she provides a "massage" and do not specify restrictions such as greek, etc. (which would imply that FS is still included), the advertiser would not fall under the articles of the new law, am I correct? Whenever the "massage" would be charged 120hh or more, then the clients would assume that is would in fact include FS because a regular massage is usually charged 40-50$hh right?. If FS wasn't included, then the clients will not come back and look for another SP and this would be also known thanks to this board.

A side question: are ERS and perb hosted abroad so that they will be able to continue publishing threads as before until the Government finds a way to prevent access from ISPs in Canada? (which will be inefficient, as other sister sites will appear or we will be able to have access through proxy servers or Hide IP ad-ons).

2) From the client perspective :

- if we do not discuss about particular services, both orally and through our text messages or emails, or - in case the SP advertises explicitly on FS on her own (which she will still be allowed provided she does it by herself) -, if the client indicates that he wishes to pay only for companionship and/or a massage and that anything else happening would be something not retributed and between two "consenting adults", would that protect the client from being found guilty? Even though this could sound weird, could we even envisage to sign a contract with the SP stating this?

- if we do not discuss financial details and do not pay until we leave the place, there is no "retribution' so no offence, correct? Although most SPs would not accept this, I know some have fully trusted me in the past. In the same vein, if an "enveloppe" is left on a table, and "forgotten" by the client, would this be a sort of protection for him?

My two cents... maybe it's too naive?

It understnable to be concerned. I would suggest sticking with we'll known SP's and use your phone to have conversations about services. Make sure you have those discussions in a private place.

Aside from that I wouldn't worry too much. Anyone that does get caught under the new laws will be via stings on BP/Craigslist and by neighbors filing complaints about in-call locations. Stick with professional SP's that manage their businesses well. Most professional SP's are careful about being discreet and they carefully select Incall locations that don't attract attention.

Check the boards for warning or posting that have been red flagged. Avoid Stetchy BP escorts.

 

[westwoody]

if an "enveloppe" is left on a table, and "forgotten" by the client, would this be a sort of protection for him?

No.

Try telling a judge that you forgot an envelope of cash at an SP's place on a social visit.
The judge will be pissed off at you for insulting their intelligence.
When you pay does not matter. Whether you pay is a yes/no question. Did you or did you not?

You should read the whole thread.

 

[Lo-ki]

Saturday December 6th.

Yep...Merry Christmas from the feds...

 

[Equity Market investor]

Stay with one or 2 ladies within Van city vicinity.....have fun with each other and mainly....be honest and very respectful to her . Good time to make a " special - long term " friend now :thumb:. Things will be ok

Be under her spell Amazing song ...especially the chorus. Nice ending.

 

[ButterCook]

Are you guys saying that Vancouver will be safe from all this?

 

[Alabama Blaze]

If that is a concern to you for your future advertising, I think that everyone here, and especially Fred Zed, would agree that you should ask your own lawyer for this kind of advice in order to protect yourself and any dollars you might invest in future advertising. I trust that Fred et al have done this already in regards to their business operations and working their plans according to the legal advice that they paid for. Asking 'the bozos on the bus' for free legal advice will just net you responses worth less than what you paid for them.

I have consulted a lawyer and the advice was, "There's better and easier ways to make money. Go out and find one".

I agree, there's never been a worse time to consider launching a new site of any kind for the industry. Everything you would need to do to market a new escort adversting site is against the law starting Dec 6. C-36 will make it nearly impossible to build an audience for a new site.

 

[westwoody]

For the upteenth time...

You got more patience than me travellor.
Why do people ask the same questions over and over? Why don't they read the thread?
Rhetorical question:no need to answer.

 

[bigbreastlover]

No.

Try telling a judge that you forgot an envelope of cash at an SP's place on a social visit.
The judge will be pissed off at you for insulting their intelligence.
When you pay does not matter. Whether you pay is a yes/no question. Did you or did you not?

You should read the whole thread.

Hum... yes but there has to be clear elements of proof for the exchange of money. Sure, my fingerprints on the enveloppe could prove it's mine... or if there is a camera. It could be someonelse's money...
Apart from that, if there has not been clear tracable agreement on previous money requirements for sex, and if I keep the money in my pocket and there is a police raid in the place and I get caught without my pants or naked with a girl before I could pay, then I could play the fool and literrally insult the judge intelligence by saying that I was having sex for free! and making him understand that, if fact, the police raid prevented me from paying! too bad!

 

[Alabama Blaze]

Hum... yes but there has to be clear elements of proof for the exchange of money. Sure, my fingerprints on the enveloppe could prove it's mine... or if there is a camera. It could be someonelse's money...
Apart from that, if there has not been clear tracable agreement on previous money requirements for sex, and if I keep the money in my pocket and there is a police raid in the place and I get caught without my pants or naked with a girl before I could pay, then I could play the fool and literrally insult the judge intelligence by saying that I was having sex for free! and making him understand that, if fact, the police raid prevented me from paying! too bad!

...then they'll have to get you on loitering and indecent exposure. They'll slap the cuffs on ya for something buddy.

 

[Man Mountain]

For the upteenth time, YES. The cities of Vancouver and Victoria have decided that they will not target adults who are having consensual sex.

Here is the link you can read on your own time.

http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/city-response-to-passing-of-bill-c-36.aspx

I don't know if Victoria has put out any kind of official statement saying as much but I've read that Vancouver release a few times now and will point out again that nowhere within it does it actually state what you are claiming.

 

[susi]

Higher Risk Situations
Often, the sex industry involves consenting adults who may never come to the attention of the
community or the police. Sex work involving consenting adults is not an enforcement priority for
the VPD.

ok MM, here's the direct quote from the vpd enforcement guidelines, its on page 4.

please try to remember, we have worked on this for a long time and i have never lied to any of you. i would not lie especially in this situation when everyone is so concerned about the risks the new law creates. i tell you, they will not be enforcing in vancouver.

if anyone does witness an underage provider or someone they are afraid maybe exploited, please report to crime stoppers or to me and i will report on your behalf as a layer of confidentiality. let's continue to work with vpd towards removing those exploiters who make us all look bad and prove that a more open environment actually works better for increasing safety than deeper criminalization.

vancouver is a safe place to operate a sex industry business as a consensual adult. its in the guidelines explicitly.

love susie

 

[Alabama Blaze]

Higher Risk Situations
Often, the sex industry involves consenting adults who may never come to the attention of the
community or the police. Sex work involving consenting adults is not an enforcement priority for
the VPD.

ok MM, here's the direct quote from the vpd enforcement guidelines, its on page 4.

please try to remember, we have worked on this for a long time and i have never lied to any of you. i would not lie especially in this situation when everyone is so concerned about the risks the new law creates. i tell you, they will not be enforcing in vancouver.

if anyone does witness an underage provider or someone they are afraid maybe exploited, please report to crime stoppers or to me and i will report on your behalf as a layer of confidentiality. let's continue to work with vpd towards removing those exploiters who make us all look bad and prove that a more open environment actually works better for increasing safety than deeper criminalization.

vancouver is a safe place to operate a sex industry business as a consensual adult. its in the guidelines explicitly.

love susie

Well Susie,

Here's to hoping Edmonton and Calgary adopt Vancouver's attitude towards C-36. Edmonton is hard to read at this point and Calgary seems a little too gun-ho about the new laws.

 

[Man Mountain]

Higher Risk Situations
Often, the sex industry involves consenting adults who may never come to the attention of the
community or the police. Sex work involving consenting adults is not an enforcement priority for
the VPD.

ok MM, here's the direct quote from the vpd enforcement guidelines, its on page 4.

I read it last night, after reverdy posted the link. I will note that those guidelines were published before Bill C-36 was introduced and the new legislation was passed. I will also note that this is also a quote from those linked quidelines:

As a police agency, the VPD is obligated to enforce the laws of Canada, although police also
have considerable discretion in deciding when and how to enforce laws. Given that some
sections of the Criminal Code related to the sex industry are the subject of several constitutional
challenges, the VPD recognizes that these guidelines may need to be amended when the courts
issue their rulings.

I have kept a lot of my opinions about the new laws and potential enforcement of those laws to myself because

a) I don't want to appear that I'm trying to undermine the good work that you have done and continue to do for the community. And believe me, I do very much appreciate your efforts.

b) I don't want to contribute to the feeling of "fear mongering" that some have accused those of us who admit that we will be much more cautious, if we choose to continue at all

However, both travellor and you have now posted that they "will not" be enforcing these laws in cases of consensual sex work. And the only reason that I'm posting this now is because that statement is an absolute that I don't believe can be guaranteed by any of the documents from which that absolute is being inferred. Remember, stating this:

Sex work involving consenting adults is not an enforcement priority for the VPD.

is not the same as stating that there will not be any enforcement of sex work involving consenting adults.

Let me clear: I don't believe that you're trying to lie to us, susi. I just think that everyone who takes part in this should have as clear a picture of the possibilities that could arise when they assess the risks and how much risk they are willing to take.

 

[Man Mountain]

What are the statistics on car accidents? Every time you get in a car, you risk having an accient.

Agreed. I know the risks and I take it. But nobody would tell me that there's no chance of getting into an accident as that simply is a guarantee that can't be made.

And it's the absolute statements that bother me.

I think there's plenty of literature (or otherwise) here for people to make well informed risk assessment decisions.

That's a fair comment and I will let others make their own decisions. My intent was never to preach my own considerations to deter others.

You are seen as a fear monger because you continue to chime in with skepticism that has been clearly outlined countless times before.

Again, my skepticism is strictly my own and I'm sorry that others see it differently. But I still believe that my skepticism is due to all of this being far less clear than it is being made out to be.

 

[Alabama Blaze]

Agreed. I know the risks and I take it. But nobody would tell me that there's no chance of getting into an accident as that simply is a guarantee that can't be made.

And it's the absolute statements that bother me.



That's a fair comment and I will let others make their own decisions. My intent was never to preach my own considerations to deter others.



Again, my skepticism is strictly my own and I'm sorry that others see it differently. But I still believe that my skepticism is due to all of this being far less clear than it is being made out to be.

Let's use the US as an example. The majority of arrests in the US are made by undercover cops working sting operations. It's very rare that any arrest are made at escorts' Incall locations. It comes down to costs. Stake-out operations are expensive and it's harder to get charges to stick when much of the evidence circumstantial.

The stings have been extemely successful in the US. The most recent backpage sting in Nassau country yielded 107 charges and 97 convictions. The stake-out operations in Nassau County, NY over the past year yeilded 47 arrests with only 4 John's being convicted. The John's got off on technicalities. Police are judged on getting results so they're going to prioritize their time and money on operations that are the most successful.

I would think the LE in Canada will copy the tactics that are going to get the best results. Most of C-36 arrests, if they do happen will likely be the results of police stings.

 

[susi]

i don't see you as a fear monger MM. i simply want to assure that in my almost daily conversations with police both in the counter exploitation unit and with their boss the inspector in charge of the special investigations unit, they are standing behind the policy. they have assured myself and others including answering questions in the georgia strait article in an attempt to alleviate fears about enforcement against adult consensual activities.

they are only interested in busting pimps and exploiters, those who would harm sex workers or any person engaged in the sex industry. their recent arrest of the guy pimping underage girls and the 30 resulting charges has demonstrated to them what they can do when resources aren't tied up enforcing against an adult consensual activity.

they are happy to focus on exploitation rather than wasting time and money chasing their tails in some federally regulated attempt to eliminate sex work.

so while i understand you and others have concerns and those concerns are valid, i want to assure you no enforcement against consensual activities - including longstanding / well known MP's - will occur in vancouver unless exploitation of a minor or any person is suspected or found.

the city of vancouver has even created 2 liaison positions intended to keep our issues at the table in the future and to ensure the spirit of these guidelines ( both the CoV and VPD policies) are respected. that spirit being increasing the safety of people working in the sex industry and preventing a disaster like that in the case of the missing and murdered women from ever happening again.

vancouver is different from anywhere else in the country. there is not one person who was not impacted by the tragedy in coquitlam. we all know the price of engaging in these sorts of folly enforcement actions which are really only put in place to please the " moral voting base" of the conservatives. here more than anywhere people are not willing to ignore science and real outcomes of bad policies such as those behind bill c-36.

i did try to get other regions to do what we did but met with skepticism about the willingness of police to take part. it is being tried in other areas as we speak. in edmonton their is a task force underway.

don't forget, while the police have an obligation to uphold the criminal code, they also have broad discretion in how they apply the law.

if these laws are used in vancouver, they will be used to ensure an exploiter goes to jail, not to humiliate and client and destroy his life for the sake of an ideal. the vpd do not see the logic in it. especially when reporting of violence is increasing and the safety of sex working epople in the city is increasing.

hope that makes sense.

love susie

 

[lenny]

I wonder does this mean there will be no more "john school" in Vancouver & no more VPD stalking, hassling and stings of johns in the DTES & Kingsway streets, with for example VPD female officers pretending to be sex workers to entrap customers?

Some people may take a wait & observe approach, like the following 6 months, & see if there are any instances of the VPD continuing with such actions, or not, during that time & if there will be any continued VPD actions against consenting adults as there has been in the past.

 

[Equity Market investor]

If any of you have ever watched the local television series called " The Beat " on City TV, you would all know what Susi is saying holds truth. The VPD will WORK WITH PEOPLE and NOT USE power trip BULLSHIT as other enforcements.... as seen on television -- ( IE..news station programs. ). However, unless, there is violence involved, underage girls involved....just to name a couple....then those are much imperative circumstances VPD needs to address.

I side with SUSI here and much KUDO's to the VPD :thumb:. Going into the new year, here in Vancouver, you will all soon see that things have been overblown on the extreme side. Again.....I'm speaking Vancouver.....my home town :clap2: