Interesting converstion with a Judge and a Crown Attorney.

[Jethro Bodine]

I thought I would mention this little tidbit.
I waited a couple of weeks to bring this up since it was a public event and I didn't want anyone to be able to easily figure out which one as to ensure the anonymity of the people involved.

I was attending an event back in November which was a bit of a who's who of Winnipeg. It so happened that seated at my table was a prominent Judge, who I knew when he was a practicing lawyer, and a high level Crown Attorney.
Later in the evening we are sitting around, after the formalities have ended and their wives have gone off to visit friends, having a scotch and I ask "So, what do you guys think of the new prostitution law coming into effect soon?"
The Crown Attorney doesn't say much except to give what I'm sure is the standard reply issued by their office. The Judge's comments were more interesting. he said that he's read the legislation and feels that it was drawn up hastily and not very well. He stated the government will have their work cut out for them defending this new law if it ever went to the Supreme Court on a number of fronts, based on the same Charter concerns that the last law was thrown out on. This guy is a top legal mind and I'm sure he knows what he is talking about.
He seemed to feel that all it will take is for the same thing to happen as last time. Someone will get charged and convicted. Then after a number of appeals by both the Crown and the accused it will end up before the Supreme Court and be declared unconstitutional. The problem is that will take a couple of years.

I did ask the Crown what they have told WPS. He said that WPS has been told by the Attorney General of Manitoba to enforce the current law as it is written.

Cheers

 

[Hereinwinnipeg]

Thanks JB for the information and the conversation. This law will surely go back to the Supreme Court, the question is when and the biggest difference this round is going to be the who takes it there.

The previous law was focused on seller, so it was about their ability to work safely and to gain an income. The new law is focused on the buyer which is us men and if and when one of us gets charged under the new law there is much more to loose by going out publicly, be it that your significant other, your friends, your family and co-workers knowing that you participate in this hobby. I think most like myself would take the charge, hope it goes away as quietly as possible and that no one finds out.

 

[chuckertmg]

Pretty much consistent with what most authorities have said about the law and what we've seen from the Harper Government since 2006: this move was poorly thought out and incompetently designed.
Article in the Free Press today emphasizing how confused all sides are by this… byline: "Police and Sex Workers Both Confused; New Law Rife with Problems".
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/police-sex-trade-workers-confused-285701791.html

 

[politeguy]

Thank you very much for this post. At the Edmonton Police Website, they have the following. It seems to indicate that someone can discuss any services as long as it is not in a public place. So there is less cause for concern, right? The link is http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/Commun...on/Prostitution/LegalitiesofProstitution.aspx

Wondering whether I should move to Edmonton LOL

Escort agencies:

It is not illegal for an individual to work for an escort agency as long as they are licensed to do so by the city. Further, engaging in non-sexual services while working for the agency is not illegal. For example, an escort who merely accompanies a john, or client, to a social gathering is not doing anything illegal. However, if it is implied that a sex act is available but will cost the client extra and a discussion ensues about price for sexual services, and if the discussion occurs in a public place, then the john and the escort are committing an illegal act (i.e., communication for the purpose of prostitution -- s. 213). If, however, the discussion occurs in a private residence, no offence has been committed.

Massage parlours:

It is not illegal for an individual to work for a massage parlour as long as they are licensed to do so by the city. Further, engaging in non-sexual services while working for the parlour is not illegal. A masseuse who actually just gives massages is not doing anything illegal. Performing sexual services in a massage clinic may be illegal if the police can prove the clinic is a place which has prostitution as its purpose. If it is implied that a sex act is available but will cost the client extra and a discussion ensues about price for sexual services, the masseuse and client are committing an illegal act (communication for the purpose of prostitution -- s. 213) unless the discussion occurs in a massage room. In that case, no illegal act has been committed.

 

[chuckertmg]

The Judge's comments were more interesting. he said that he's read the legislation and feels that it was drawn up hastily and not very well. He stated the government will have their work cut out for them defending this new law if it ever went to the Supreme Court on a number of fronts

Best short video I've seen on the new laws. Real clarity here:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-law-explained-with-lego-video/#__federated=1

 

[yesimpacking8]

The Edmonton police site is still based on the old law.

The new law appears to have some workarounds. But there are some key points:

- Communication regarding specific services runs afoul of the law. For example, you cannot discuss BBBJ, FS, Greek, CIM, etc.
- Interestingly, receiving a lap dance where there is contact with you (as in, grinding on your crotch through clothes) becomes illegal
- If you have an affinity for one another, there is no crime...

Having a clear discussion that money exchanged is for time only and that anything that happens afterwards is specifically due to an affinity to one another between two consenting adults should be ok. Having no discussion on anything in particular and just going with the flow for a standard GFE should also be ok.

Example text conversation:

You: Hello, are you available?
SP: Yes lover, what time?
You: 8 pm?
SP: See you then. For how long?
You: 1 hour

If there is no advertised services for your service provider, then there can be no implied sexual services.

You show up:

Knock knock.
SP: Hello lover. Please come in.
You: <places envelope on table> (this is tricky. is merely placing the envelope an implied contract or agreement?)
SP: Let's move to the bedroom


Obviously such an interaction minimizes your risk. However, it definitely limits the ability of the SP to screen you, and also limits your ability to get what you want.

Thoughts?

 

[yesimpacking8]

Double post, sorry

 

[bubba101]

So my first thought is if all sp's were to meet u at the door topless or nude u can damned well but it wouldn't be a police sting and u could proceed from there her informing u of her rates.

Dunno maybe this is a dumb suggestion!

Im obviously not a lawyer .lol

 

[Maxfield]

I read an article where the hookers in Baltimore would ask their gentleman callers to "whip it out" If the didn't, odds are they were cops. This became known as the "Baltimore handshake". Bubba101 isn't far off the mark here. Maybe we need the ladies here to flash their boobs as proof they aren't female cops.

 

[bubba101]

Well as far as I can figure its not illegal for the ladies to sell it but is definitely illegal for us to to buy it or even offer to.

As for bare boobs its not illegal to go topless in this country. Equal rights and all. But u can bet a lady cop isn't going to do it in a sting operation and if she did I would like to see her explain that to the judge during her testimony .

 

[Jethro Bodine]

and if she did I would like to see her explain that to the judge during her testimony .

She'd lie. Tell the judge she was fully clothed.
Whose he/she going to believe. A highly decorated, detective, with a spotless record as a member of Winnipeg's Finest or some low-life sexual deviant like you.