new prostitution bill

[Ice4fun 78407]

The Senate will most likely pass the bill. If that happens then can we write letters to the Governor General of Canada asking him to veto it based on the fact that the process of creating the bill was flawed?

 

You can write anyone you want but the bottom line is once this passes both houses of parliament it will become the new law. The governor general will not do anything to hold it up.

 

Just my Opinion

[Phaedrus 209521]

If you don't agree with those in power, you go to a re-education camp until you see the error of your ways.

 

This is not a new idea, although I don't recall it happening in Canada before.

[roamingguy 300292]

[conquistador 18487]

A camp? Seriously? Lol. This is fucked up, most ridiculous thing I've heard of.

[mrrnice2 157005]

A camp? Seriously? Lol. This is fucked up, most ridiculous thing I've hard of.

 

Does anyone have any links to documentation where this camp thing is verified. Most sex workers and their organizations have chosen to take the high road in this fight, to use logic and reason. Let us now not drop to the anti C-36 level of manufacturing facts out of thin air. However, if that is real I would like to be able to see it.

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

If they are sending us to harrington lake, it shouldn't be that bad.

 

http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/places-to-visit/official-residences/harrington-lake-lac-mousseau

[fortunateone 156618]

And all you have to do is admit you are guilty to get access to the 'diversion'.

 

 

Ok, just a word of advice, if you are going to plead guilty, do it in the spring/summer, because camp in the winter in MB has to be brutal.

 

 

I think this program has been flying under the radar for quite some time, if this is the first we are hearing about it.

[mrgreen760 37785]

I live in Manitoba and the only diversion I've heard about is one that diverts the Assinboine river.

 

Peace

MG

[roamingguy 300292]

Well what should happen is with this diversion program, a bunch of ladies and gents should get together at the diversion program for a poly party LOL

Oh wait, I'll bet no diversions like that for the guys is there?

Does that mean the CPC encourages poly amorous lesbian encounters LOL

 

RG

[Escapefromstress 2976]

Liberal senator to propose changes to controversial new prostitution bill

 

By: Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/can...280944432.html

 

OTTAWA - A Liberal senator will propose more amendments to the Conservative government's controversial anti-prostitution bill as the clock ticks down on a court-imposed deadline for implementation of a new law.

 

The Senate has concluded its committee study of Bill C-36 and the bill is expected to be back before the upper chamber for third reading next week.

 

Liberal Sen. George Baker said Thursday he intends to introduce 15 amendments during that debate, all seeking to remove provisions which would criminalize those who sell sex.

 

"We didn't hear from anybody who said that those provisions should be there," he said in an interview.

 

The Conservative government wants to get the bill through the legislative process by the middle of November, so it can get royal assent and become law by December. That would meet the deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada when it struck down existing laws as unconstitutional last year.

 

The court found the laws violated the charter rights of sex workers because they were criminally prohibited from taking measures to keep themselves safe.

 

In response, the government introduced the current bill, which it argues protects sex workers by giving them access to bodyguards and the ability to work indoors.

 

However, none of that can happen if a third party benefits or the sex worker is operating in exploitative conditions.

 

But scores of witnesses told both MPs and senators that the various exemptions in the bill are open to further charter challenges.

 

For example, while the bill would allow sex workers to advertise, it would make it an offence for anyone to run those ads, said Ian Clark, an executive member of the Canadian Bar Association's national criminal justice section.

 

"Therefore, an individual who is attempting to sell their services cannot avail themselves of any advertising, can't screen clients on the Internet, various things that the Supreme Court raised that were important," Clark told the Senate legal affairs committee on Thursday.

 

"This ban on advertising, given the fact that selling remains lawful, is potentially unconstitutional."

 

The bill has already been amended once, to tighten restrictions on where it would be illegal to communicate for the purpose of selling sex.

 

But that provision, as well as any others which continue to criminalize sex work need to be struck out, Baker said.

 

He said he was troubled by testimony from Manitoba's provincial justice minister, who said he would simply tell prosecutors not to proceed with charges in the event prostitutes were arrested under those provisions.

 

That creates an abuse of process, which is a constitutional violation, Baker said.

 

"You'll have somebody arrested, put in jail probably and then no prosecution taking place," he said.

 

"So it's a rather ridiculous situation that those provisions are now in the bill that will create such confusion at the end of the day."

 

For Baker's amendments to pass, he'll need the support of some Conservative senators as their party holds the majority in the Senate.

 

"I think there will be some support there simply because it's a unanimous thing on the part of those who have appeared," he said.

 

Debate over the bill has revealed a split between those who consider sex work a legitimate profession that requires access to safe working conditions and those who see all people working as prostitutes as victims in an industry that needs to be outlawed.

 

But the Senate committee was urged Thursday to consider putting partisan differences aside to reach a compromise on good legislation to protect everyone.

[Guest S****r]

Liberal Sen. George Baker said Thursday he intends to introduce 15 amendments during that debate, all seeking to remove provisions which would criminalize those who sell sex.

 

"We didn't hear from anybody who said that those provisions should be there," he said in an interview.

 

Well, a glimpse of sanity!

[Escapefromstress 2976]

You can to listen to, or watch recordings of the Senate Meetings from the last 2 days here:

 

Title LCJC Meeting No. 45

Location Room 257, East Block

Event Date Wednesday, Oct 29, 2014

Actual Start Time Wednesday, Oct 29, 04:11 PM EDT

Actual End Time Wednesday, Oct 29, 06:22 PM EDT

Status Adjourned

Description Meeting No. 45 Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

 

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Canada v. Bedford)

 

• Edward Herold, Professor Emeritus, University of Guelph (As an Individual)
  
• Bernard Lerhe (As an Individual)
  
• Barbara Gosse, Senior Director, Research, Policy and Innovation (Canadian Women's Foundation)
  
• The Honourable Andrew Swan, M.L.A., Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Government of Manitoba)
  

 

http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.as...46&Language=E#

 

Title LCJC Meeting No. 46

Location Room 257, East Block

Event Date Thursday, Oct 30, 2014

Actual Start Time Thursday, Oct 30, 10:24 AM EDT

Actual End Time Thursday, Oct 30, 12:12 PM EDT

Status Adjourned

Description Meeting No. 46 Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

 

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Canada v. Bedford)

 

• Ian M. Carter, Member of the Executive, Criminal Justice Section (Canadian Bar Association)
  
• Gunilla S. Ekberg, Lawyer, University of Glasgow School of Law (As an Individual)
  
• Gaylene Schellenberg, Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform (Canadian Bar Association)
  

 

Consideration of a draft agenda (future business)

 

http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.as...46&Language=E#

[ezish12 577]

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 having a record on my file if I get caught. I love travelling and don't want to cause an issue. Also won't go well with work. 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?

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. A regular.

2. When I contact her send an email asking simply to meet for 1 hour. *That's all. Nothing more in the email. I think email is safe and secure. Don't like texting. Also email from my hobby account.

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 ?

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

I suggest to also be very aware of what hotel location you are visiting( you know the type, shady places with many report in news). As some locations may be more closely watched. On that note, I know many of my regulars prefer not going to hotels, especially if a lady they never seen before, as LE would set up in hotel locations. I also believe that LE would not go threw the extent to create personal web sites. If it is a new lady, ask if she has any other lady friends for a reference. I think this is the time for industry references.

JUST NEVER EVER ASK DETAILS pay for time only. Because that is what an escort/masseuse/entertainer advertises for!

[ezish12 577]

I suggest to also be very aware of what hotel location you are visiting( you know the type, shady places with many report in news). As some locations may be more closely watched. On that note, I know many of my regulars prefer not going to hotels, especially if a lady they never seen before, as LE would set up in hotel locations. I also believe that LE would not go threw the extent to create personal web sites. If it is a new lady, ask if she has any other lady friends for a reference. I think this is the time for industry references.

JUST NEVER EVER ASK DETAILS pay for time only. Because that is what an escort/masseuse/entertainer advertises for!

 

Ofcourse not a motel. At least a 4 or 5 star hotel (for lack of better term I am using star rating). I won't go to a motel where they have individual room with parking in front of everyroom. It hhas to be a reputable one. But even if it's one of those nicer ones, how does that help? You don't think a good hotel (fairmont) won't let LE setup sting operation?

Posted via Mobile Device

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Ofcourse not a motel. At least a 4 or 5 star hotel (for lack of better term I am using star rating). I won't go to a motel where they have individual room with parking in front of everyroom. It hhas to be a reputable one. But even if it's one of those nicer ones, how does that help? You don't think a good hotel (fairmont) won't let LE setup sting operation?

Posted via Mobile Device

 

I was not implying you would go to shady place, I do not know you personally therefore was just stress this point to others.

 

But regardless,

 

NEVER ASK FOR anything extra, do not answer ads that are promoting any other then esort/massage/entertainment. Escorts, masseuse and entertainers only ever advertise for time spent.

 

If it were a sting let's say,

the ad will not be for time only or at least will not entice you to ask. So if you do not ask for more then time, then they have no case at all.

 

Perhaps letting her make the first move, such as kissing and close hug, will satisfy your concerns.

 

Bottom line with a new lady ask her for a reference, research her as established provider. And just don't ask for it. She may be willing to express her likes in a private setting, but do not ask .

[drlove 37204]

NEVER ASK FOR anything extra, do not answer ads that are promoting any other then esort/massage/entertainment. Escorts, masseuse and entertainers only ever advertise for time spent.

 

I've noticed recently that some reputable ladies who advertise that "money exchanged is for time only", or something to that effect, also have a very explicit service menu listed on their site. That said, if such a lady were the subject of a sting and her client were caught, wouldn't the police have grounds to suspect that prostitution was taking place? Would the client be more likely to be charged in such an instance?

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

I've noticed recently that some reputable ladies who advertise that "money exchanged is for time only", or something to that effect, also have a very explicit service menu listed on their site. That said, if such a lady were the subject of a sting and her client were caught, wouldn't the police have grounds to suspect that prostitution was taking place? Would the client be more likely to be charged in such an instance?

 

 

As cautious business women would probably not have these details on her site. Like I have, and many before me, only sell time and not those kinds of things. I know for me, and many others here complies to the CCC.

 

The independent lady can legally have these things on her site, however it is up to you to NOT TO ASK. And these site are not permitted to be linked here. As that would make MOD 3rd party. ( as far as I understand MOD knows best on this)

 

But in your scenario that you describe the lady can not and would not be subject of a sting, only the client who is seeking such things. Yes I suppose as far as building a case against you the client who is seeking those things, it could go threw a long hard process to gather evidence. But even then most of us are .com not .ca and hosted outside of Canada, so you can just imagine the work and money they would have to spend to build any kind of evidence. It is hard enough with all the other human rights crimes, let alone this.

 

But I am not a lawyer, lol however, I have chosen to work within the CCC and feel that it is your duty to as well. Look at my site and others here for a good example of what complying looks like.

[Phaedrus 209521]

1. See someone who I have seen before. A regular.

2. When I contact her send an email asking simply to meet for 1 hour. *That's all. Nothing more in the email. I think email is safe and secure. Don't like texting. Also email from my hobby account.

3. Meeting at a hotel room or condo.

 

1 and 2 are sensible. I don't think 3 matters much.

 

You'll also be fine with someone you haven't met before but who has a good track record (some recos/reviews, has been around for a while).

 

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.

 

Absolutely! If all you've done is arranged to meet someone for an hour (or whatever) then you've done nothing remotely illegal. Where you found her phone number or email address is irrelevant.

 

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.

 

I carry cash all the time, although admittedly it's not normally in an envelope :)

 

I'd have thought that any form of electronic payment is far riskier, because it's traceable after the fact (if someone really wants to bother). Cash is fundamentally untraceable. Before you walk into the room, nobody can prove what you intended to do with it. After you leave, no-one can prove where she got it from. If LE raids the room while you're in it, just disavow all knowledge of anything, but...

 

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.

 

...what you describe isn't really a sting, IMHO, it's a raid (assuming you're seeing a genuine person rather than an undercover cop). It's highly unlikely to happen; the police have a million better things to do than go breaking down the door to catch consenting adults having fun. They generally won't do this without good reason, and that usually means they have a good reason to suspect trafficking, someone acting against their will, or someone being under-age.

 

What I'd call a sting is when a cop puts an ad somewhere, or hangs out on a street corner, and anyone who shows enough interest gets arrested. This is easy to avoid; don't look for a good time on the street, and avoid the brand new girl on BP or wherever.

 

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

 

Sticking with people you already know and not discussing specifics in advance will eliminate pretty much all of it, I think.

[ezish12 577]

...what you describe isn't really a sting, IMHO, it's a raid (assuming you're seeing a genuine person rather than an undercover cop). It's highly unlikely to happen; the police have a million better things to do than go breaking down the door to catch consenting adults having fun. They generally won't do this without good reason, and that usually means they have a good reason to suspect trafficking, someone acting against their will, or someone being under-age.

 

What I'd call a sting is when a cop puts an ad somewhere, or hangs out on a street corner, and anyone who shows enough interest gets arrested. This is easy to avoid; don't look for a good time on the street, and avoid the brand new girl on BP or wherever.

 

I see. That make sense.

Never going to the street or non reputable one. So don't need to worry about sting.

So if it's a raid, once I am in the hotel room, worst case scenario you will hear a knock on the door. But then they can't really prove anything. But I don't like the idea COP is trying to intimidate me. I wouldn't know what to say or what not to say. Hanging out with an SP is not a crime.

Posted via Mobile Device

[mod 135640]

You can POST whatever you want on your personal website... legally. Problem is NO ONE is allowed to let you ADVERTISE your website legally if your website offers prostitution services.

[ezish12 577]

You can POST whatever you want on your personal website... legally. Problem is NO ONE is allowed to let you ADVERTISE your website legally if your website offers prostitution services.

 

Yeah. Which is dumb & crazy logic.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Guest v****o]

So, is the law in effect now, or is it only enforced 30 days after receiving Royal assent? I have seen both arguments claimed as being the case.

[squirtingmilf 1982]

Dec 6th it comes into effect.

[mod 135640]

Correct, it is law but in grace so not enforced until December 6th (The bill had a 30 day grace clause in it)