C-36, s. 286.1

[bigassone 115]

I've been seeing a lot of mixed interpretations on here about what section 286.1 of bill C-36 actually means. The most popular one seems to be this:

 

Anyone who pays another person for sex has broken the law. Also, anyone who communicates with another person about paying for sex has broken the law. Example: John Doe gets drunk. He texts an escort just for kicks and says "I'll give you $100 for a BJ." By simply mentioning the exchange of money for a sexual service, John Doe has broken the law.

 

Does this seem right to you guys?

 

Lets take a look at what the bill actually says:

 

"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..."

 

To me, for the example above to be true, the bill would need to read:

 

"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..."

 

Instead, the bill actually reads as:

 

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

 

When read like this, the bill is implying that there needs to be a physical transaction of money for either obtaining (actually going through with it) or communicating that sexual service.

Example: John Doe gets drunk. He texts an escort and says "I'll give you $100 for a BJ." John Doe meets up with the escort, hands her $100, and gets a BJ. John Doe has just broken the law because a physical transaction of money was made.

 

Doesn't this make more sense to you guys?

 

What are your thoughts?

[fortunateone 156618]

You are ignoring the 'communicates for the purpose of' part.

 

This means that only talking about it is indeed a crime, provided what you are talking about is a specific dollar amount for a specific sexual service. That is why many ads and many sps only give you information about a specific amount for a specific amount of time.

 

 

side note, they are using 'consideration' not 'money' because they want to also make things like trading services, trading goods or trading accomodation also part of being a crime.

[cinelli 22184]

I've been seeing a lot of mixed interpretations on here about what section 286.1 of bill C-36 actually means. The most popular one seems to be this:

 

Anyone who pays another person for sex has broken the law. Also, anyone who communicates with another person about paying for sex has broken the law. Example: John Doe gets drunk. He texts an escort just for kicks and says "I'll give you $100 for a BJ." By simply mentioning the exchange of money for a sexual service, John Doe has broken the law.

 

Does this seem right to you guys?

 

Lets take a look at what the bill actually says:

 

"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..."

 

To me, for the example above to be true, the bill would need to read:

 

"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..."

 

Instead, the bill actually reads as:

 

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

 

When read like this, the bill is implying that there needs to be a physical transaction of money for either obtaining (actually going through with it) or communicating that sexual service.

Example: John Doe gets drunk. He texts an escort and says "I'll give you $100 for a BJ." John Doe meets up with the escort, hands her $100, and gets a BJ. John Doe has just broken the law because a physical transaction of money was made.

 

Doesn't this make more sense to you guys?

 

What are your thoughts?

 

This post is remarkably similar to a post on the other board.

The poster there was clearly flogging a dead horse, C36 has been debated ad nauseum on many boards, including this one. Why bring it up again in a new thread?

 

Some suspect there are abolitionists bringing this up to deter customers.

 

Maybe not in this case but worth bearing in mind.

[bigassone 115]

This post is remarkably similar to a post on the other board.

The poster there was clearly flogging a dead horse, C36 has been debated ad nauseum on many boards, including this one. Why bring it up again in a new thread?

 

Some suspect there are abolitionists bringing this up to deter customers.

 

Maybe not in this case but worth bearing in mind.

 

Because I sincerely cannot find the answer to what I'm looking for. I'm being told that the bill is in clear english, yet it's being interpreted differently within both of these boards. I'm not trying to start anything or deter anybody, so If somebody who knows the answer definitively (and can back it up with an explanation) would be kind enough to send me a PM, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

The law is ambiguous and you are looking for assurances that no one can give.

 

Since the other board has been brought up - I would like to point out something that I suspect you have missed.

 

Lyla does not allow any discussion, advertising or recommendations of prostitution related services. It's a clear line in the sand. This is as a result of consultation with their lawyers. The other board is the exact opposite. They allow and encourage it. They even allow reviews of street workers which is clearly illegal. If you didn't know that, then you might think "well, Joe does it, so therefore I can do it".

 

I also find it interesting that just recently a Seattle review board was shut down, the hobbyists from the board were arrested based on their graphic reviews. Yes, it is the US law being used, but there is no actual evidence (that I am aware of), that the encounters happened. I'm sure the lawyers will argue their clients were just taking artistic liberties to describe their "dear playboy" experiences. Maybe, maybe not. However, they killed themselves when the also discussed the money they spent on their encounters. So, they tied a sexual service with a dollar amount and are facing court as a result.

 

To add to the whole scenario, the prairie board lost all data from 45 days ago - I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but it is interesting, that shortly after the arrests in Seattle, this happened on a board that allows graphic reviews of illegal activities.

 

So - the short answer you are looking for. It is illegal to purchase any sexual service. No ifs, ands or buts about this. Whether it is in private, or public - the new law made this very clear.

 

If you want to stay safe, see ladies who advertise time and companionship only. Do not ask them what is included in this time together. View the recommendations, ask your fellow hobbyists. If you do see someone, and want to share your experience, keep the details private.

 

At the end of the day - if you still have questions, I would suggest you speak with a lawyer. On line lawyers will give you so many different answers, it is impossible to tell which one is the right one.

 

I hope this helps.

[drlove 37204]

 

If you want to stay safe, see ladies who advertise time and companionship only. Do not ask them what is included in this time together. View the recommendations, ask your fellow hobbyists. If you do see someone, and want to share your experience, keep the details private.

 

First, I'd like to say thank you to Meaghan for another informative, well thought out post. I feel the government was intentionally ambiguous in its legislation so as to obfuscate what is and what is not permissible. That said, I myself am still confused about some parts of the new law.

 

For instance, I understand the concept of buying time and companionship as opposed to a sexual service. E.g (one hour of a lady's time for "X" amount of dollars) However, if a lady is offering a one hour "GFE" experience for "X" amount, does that qualify as a sexual service, or is it still considered 'time and companionship'?

 

If someone could answer this for me, I'd be very grateful!

 

Thank you.

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

This is my take. In the US, they use the term "experience" quite often. However, you will notice, they do not identify what is included in this experience. There are standards that are generally expected to be included in order to classify this particular experience. However, it is not spelled out and can vary depending on the provider.

 

So, if I were a hobbyist, I personally would stay away from someone that actually spells it out. This way, you can say, truthfully, that you were unaware, and therefore did not purchase something specific. Of course, the field gets muddied in that as an escort, I can legally specify my services. However, in order to keep my guys safe, I don't. I do however, have a couple of erotic stories written by someone else (author is identified), on my website. Is it fiction or non-fiction???

 

This is of course my own personal opinion. There are those that freely advertise - this is their right. It doesn't mean that they are more likely to be LE. Far from it actually if they are well established. Remember before the changes in law - discussion was allowed, advertising was allowed. What was not allowed was if the discussion or advertising was done in public. So, discussions were done in private, or by phone. So, for those that have been in this business before the changes, they feel that they didn't want to have to go to a place where the expectations are unknown.

 

So, the choice is yours to make based on your own risk level. However, at the end of the day, and I've said it many times, if it is a sting, the undercover officer is going to insist you spell out what you want for the price. Legitimate Escorts don't do that. We know what you want and make it a easy exchange.

[drlove 37204]

That makes sense. I know a lot of legitimate escorts advertise GFE, so that's not an issue. I was just thinking along the lines of this: if there was a sting and these ladies were targeted in an effort to get to their clients, it may be easier to make a charge stick with someone purchasing a GFE package using text (thus a documented electronic trail) than say, someone purchasing an hour's worth of time over the phone.

[waterat 20911]

lol! I had a 'good Catholic' girlfriend. She was exceedingly creative but intercourse was not on the menu. Still think of her often.

[Dave in Phoenix 753]

I think comparing the U.S. (Seattle case) to Canada is like apples and oranges.

 

The issue in Seattle was the first ever I've heard of bust based on reviews (not ads which is more discussed here.) If you really want to follow the Seattle case it is BBBJ etc mentioned in reviews that would seem to be more the issue. But the U.S. law is far more extensive and in various states crime includes "promoting", "assisting" etc. And sex trafficking can be charged a boyfriend/husband that acts as phone helper, driver etc. In Alaska there is a well-respected companion in prison for sex trafficking HERSELF!

 

In the U.S. there are massive stings going after private consenting adults with huge grant money from the anti's funding these operations with the idea that all sexwork is abuse of women. Two vice cops at a trial I attended testified in decade or more of vice work they never met a woman who willingly was a sex worker.

 

Contrast that with the attitude of most PD's in Canada. Some major city police have come out with long statements that they are only enforcing C-36 based on harm. Toronto PD came out with a long statement limiting enforcement to under aged, or when forced. Likewise, as I recall Victoria B.C. and Montreal.

 

However, a few cities seem to be enforcing more harshly but if they do without evidence of harm it is likely C36 will be challenged in the Courts just like the case that eliminated all the prostitution laws which resulted in the C36 response.

 

I agree to avoid the "communications" issue it is safer not to list sex acts in ads. But how about in reviews? It says "any person"...

 

And the disallowing any links or information in signature lines seems an even more extreme reaction such as deleting all my links to noncommercial sites with mostly information and my own reviews, or even my libchrist.com or lovetouch.info which have nothing to do with money for sex.

 

Some of us may prefer less paranoid boards as I have with my thousands of posts over a decade on another board.

[cyclo 30131]

I've been seeing a lot of mixed interpretations on here about what section 286.1 of bill C-36 actually means. The most popular one seems to be this:

 

Anyone who pays another person for sex has broken the law. Also, anyone who communicates with another person about paying for sex has broken the law. Example: John Doe gets drunk. He texts an escort just for kicks and says "I'll give you $100 for a BJ." By simply mentioning the exchange of money for a sexual service, John Doe has broken the law.

 

Does this seem right to you guys?

 

Lets take a look at what the bill actually says:

 

"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..."

 

To me, for the example above to be true, the bill would need to read:

 

"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..."

 

Instead, the bill actually reads as:

 

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

 

When read like this, the bill is implying that there needs to be a physical transaction of money for either obtaining (actually going through with it) or communicating that sexual service.

Example: John Doe gets drunk. He texts an escort and says "I'll give you $100 for a BJ." John Doe meets up with the escort, hands her $100, and gets a BJ. John Doe has just broken the law because a physical transaction of money was made.

 

Doesn't this make more sense to you guys?

 

What are your thoughts?

 

1. You can't always reach a conclusion about the law simply by reading the words on the page. Previous legal decisions have a significant bearing on how laws are interpreted going forward.

 

2. Before Bill C-36 was ever introduced, the Criminal Code had provisions prohibiting communicating prostitution services in a public place. Numerous cases turned on the issue of "communicating". These precedents affect how the current law is interpreted. There's nothing in the new law that appears to undermine these precedents.

 

3. The most important change introduced by Bill C-36 is that purchasing sexual services is now illegal (it wasn't before) and providing sexual services is still legal. The issues you're raising about communication, by the customer, haven't been significantly changed by Bill C-36.

 

4. It may be fun over a beer to debate the cadence of how the law is read "obtaining (pause) for consideration" or whether a phrase should or should not be hyphenated "obtaining-for-consideration". However in a court of law you're not likely to get to first base with these kinds of arguments. Very few judicial decisions turn on this type of grammatical analysis.

 

5. Finally, the specific facts of a case are always relevant to a decision. The law prohibits communication to obtain sexual services "for consideration" in any "place". In the example you gave of text communication, there might not be a violation of the communication provisions because the Criminal Code defines a "place" as being "covered or enclosed" (Section 197.1) and previous cases have determined that electronic communication etc is not a "place". But you have "obtain(ed) for consideration"... "the sexual services of a person" and your text is not only evidence of that, it's evidence that you've entered into a contract.

 

Having said all this, in the real world most Police Depts. are only laying charges in cases involving exploited individuals (underage, trafficked, coerced etc.). The common advice to avoid legal problems is to seek out providers who are reasonably well known and do your due diligence to avoid any providers who you think may fall into these categories.

 

I hope this helps.

 

If you want a bit of background on the government's thinking when they drafted Bill C-36 in general as well as discussion of specific provisions, here's a link to the Department of Justice "Technical Paper: Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act".

 

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html#edn25

[Dave in Phoenix 753]

3. The most important change introduced by Bill C-36 is that purchasing sexual services is now illegal (it wasn't before)

 

Minor point purchasing was legal as long as not in public (street, public area of bar or hotel etc). In one case a remote street rarely used was ruled not public since there was an expectation of privacy. Even the Edmonton Police website said for many years (still may) that a close massage room was not a public place for the purpose of the solicitation law.

 

As you point out it was never illegal to solicit/communicate by phone, e-mail, websites etc.

[cyclo 30131]

Whoops! I responded twice so I deleted this one.

[fortunateone 156618]

Not sure if this is a good place to put this, but there is a book put out by the head of the Prostitution Unit in Sweden. Keep in mind the 'nordic model' was invented there, and been enforced there for over 15 years, so the police have had some experience in investigation and charging the offense of 'sex buying'.

 

What Sweden does not do is stings. Why not? Because solicitation, public or private, i.e. communication is not criminalized. Only the act of paying for services.

 

Check out how they determine whether to charge someone or not:

 

https://feministire.com/2016/05/29/so-you-dont-want-to-take-amnestys-word-for-it-okay/

 

I am guessing the Canadian cops & lawmakers are not going to risk going this far into investigations

 

 

oh, and kwetoday did a great report (scholarly type) https://kwetoday.com/2016/06/01/the-reports-are-clear-the-nordicmodel-neither-ends-commercial-sex-work-nor-ends-exploitation/