Bill C-36 (winnipeg's opinion)

[Zoe Zee 13876]

Hey all,

 

I know there is a larger discussion on this in the general area but I wondered what Winnipeg clients think and their reaction and future habits regarding bill c-36?

[cinelli 22184]

Maybe sit on the sidelines and see how things go for awhile.

 

IF, and that's a big if, I see anyone it will be someone I have a long term relationship with and that I know and trust.

 

No way will I be seeing anyone new.

[Guest *i*********y]

Maybe sit on the sidelines and see how things go for awhile.

 

IF, and that's a big if, I see anyone it will be someone I have a long term relationship with and that I know and trust.

 

No way will I be seeing anyone new.

 

I agree. This will be great for the ladies who have been around for a while, it could kill all the new girls that pop up on BP cause anyone with 1/2 a brain won't go near anyone new (LE?) when they can see someone who has been around for a while and who can be trusted to be legit. Happy Days for any SP who has been around for a few years!

[mrgreen760 37785]

Mostly on the sidelines any way these days and that will continue. Competition will be limited as folks will gun shy to see any one new on the scene and prices could rise and service could suffer as supply and demand become unbalanced.

 

Not good for any one.

 

Peace

MG

[f158 973]

Correct me if I'm wrong someone but C-36 a sex worker is able to "out" their client if they want to and get them charged. I won't be going to see even known ladies once this is out. Too much risk. The fun and games will stop in December.

 

Should have left well enough alone and not made a legal challenge to begin with.

[Zoe Zee 13876]

I didn't know about that, but couldn't that technically be done currently? Please correct me if I'm wrong...

[cinelli 22184]

I do not think a serious long term SP like Zoe for example would be outing clients.

Professionals have a "brand" that they create, market, and protect. They would lose everything if they were shown to be outing anyone. Professionals are easy to identify. Some come on here and you can see that they are thoughtful and intelligent people.

Fear those who have nothing to lose.

[young60 1118]

I really don't understand the bill, and from the little I do know about it , my feeling is that it will be challenged in court as well. albeit not until a number of people have been charged. I personally feel that our government blew it big time by adopting this bill , and it will hurt both the sp's and the clients, far more than protecting anyone. I think that independent reputable SP's will be the only way top go moving forwards, and that the massage parlours days are numbered.....as far as I'm am concerned, I have scaled back already , and hope to completely move away from partaking of any SP's services come Dec., and if I do, it will only be with trusted sp's like Zoe etc.

Zoe you are , and always have been one of the classiest and best SP's in the city and we really should get together again some day soon!

[Simpleman993 100]

I will definitely stay away from it all. It will be too risky and not worth it.

[foofer 217]

Fear those who have nothing to lose.

The trick is weeding them out. I know of a couple of popular SP's who are at the point in their lives of wanting to retire due to being sick of putting up with men's crap (harassment, no-shows, etc.). They are only staying in it to pad their retirement savings and already seem to be on autopilot in their sessions. They don't need to stay in business. Are they a risk? Dunno.

 

The way the law is written and the propaganda, SP's are victims and will be given "help". Clients will be tarred, feathered, and dragged through the dirt. And that's if they have a good lawyer.

 

As victims, SP's probably won't have anything to lose, such as having their name published would only further exploit them. Not so for the criminal, pervert clients.

 

The risks are going to be many. A new(not LE) SP that gets into the biz and during her first client decides that she made a big mistake. Maybe she freaks and calls the cops. Or a long time SP that wants revenge for some reason. How about blackmail? "Give me $500 or I call the cops and tell them how you exploited me". It's a criminal male's word against a female victim. The balance of power has moved completely to the SP, which forces the client to put total trust in a stranger who's job is acting. (no offense intended) There has to be risk and reward for both parties for the arrangement to work.

 

Then there's the reality that the law does curb the hobby. The LEO's will have more time to stake out and "rescue" SP's that don't need or want rescuing.

 

One thing for sure is it's going to be an interesting winter.

[f158 973]

I didn't know about that, but couldn't that technically be done currently? Please correct me if I'm wrong...

 

 

I was just going by something that I read from a newspaper article where it said that the new bill will also have a provision for SP's to out their clients to LA. I suppose it can be done now but "prostitution" itself is not against the law so I don't really know where that would go.

 

Dark unknown days are ahead of us.

 

P.S. I never meant that Zoe would do something like that only that it can happen with the new law.

[elroy2000 190]

What I would love to see, are the SP's in Ottawa to wave their client list and say, go ahead, I dare you to vote for this bill. Would be interesting to see the vote swing then.

[cat 262460]

Any SP worth her professional panties won't be waving their black book details publicly anytime soon. The truth is, there is no profit in outing a client so professional companions will be continuing on. The fly by nights are what you need to be aware of. If a provider isn't a long term investor in the industry then don't chance it. New girls will have to go to agencies and be vetted with identification and a couple of calls under their belts before they will be welcomed as indies. The changes are not really that big for indoor workers and clients. The real catch is the advertising legislation now imposed. There will be a marked change in the amount of information a client will be able to ask before meeting a provider. In that case, don't ask about services and you are fine. Payment for companionship has always been a non issue, what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business and no one is interested in what they do.

 

Bottom line, new girls will where the risk lies in terms of LE so don't ask about sex before meeting or for sex once you arrive. Let her lead the way...

 

cat

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

What I would love to see, are the SP's in Ottawa to wave their client list and say, go ahead, I dare you to vote for this bill. Would be interesting to see the vote swing then.

Waiving a client list? A vote swing?

Talk about crash and burn for the SP (if she keeps a "black book")!

[cinelli 22184]

^ I agree with cat.

 

If you have a relationship with a provider odds are you know what they want, they know what you want, chances of a good out come are very high. There is no need for haggling over the details. Just call them up and invite them over.

 

And as I said before, the true professionals have a lot invested in their business. Websites, clothes, pro photography, a large and loyal customer base. They are not going to ruin it by doing something stupid.

 

I fear someone whose only investment is a five dollar ad on bp and is doing this on a whim or worse.

[Zachmont 3826]

I'm hoping this bill is a tempest in a teapot... Much like the current marijuana laws (when people light up at city hall during a protest, can you really say the law is enforceable?). It sounds good on paper, it pleases the bible thumpers to think they have saved some waif's soul, and life goes on as normal for the rest of the world.

 

If there's no victim, LE currently don't have the will, money, or motivation. That would need to change. If the SP and client are both consensual and respectful, there's no great cause for concern as neither is likely to report the other. If you respond to a "lemme fukk yur brainz out" ad on BP with a generic stock photo, you probably get what you deserve.

 

So perhaps a bit more caution as clients, but I personally doubt (hope it doesn't? Pray it doesn't?) that it will become a witch hunt.

 

I have been accused of being hopelessly naive before though!

[daddio 2704]

I may be naive, but I tend to agree with Cinelli's first post. And that is that I feel I can trust completely the CERB ladies I have met a few times. I do believe that you can get a good sense of, for want of better words, their "business ethics". And, from that belief of mine, I disagree with the notion that these ladies will take advantage of a perceived opportunity in a "depressed market" to increase their donations. In short, I believe there is a lot of goodwill, and trust, between escorts and hobbyists who already have established a relationship.

[Smirk 1920]

With all the changes that are happening, why don't we just change with it?

 

Why don't we ONLY friend people we have met and have a level of trust with? That would give pooners a reference to checkout an SP. Actually, I think when meeting a new gent, it would be perfectly ok for him to ask me for a reference from the board. The women on this board have asked for references for years, and it helps us keep safe. There is no reason why the gentlemen shouldn't ask for them too.

 

We woman have been trying to keep each other safe with references for years ... just time to let men into the loop.... my 2 cents ;-)

[bcguy42 38594]

Correct me if I'm wrong someone but C-36 a sex worker is able to "out" their client if they want to and get them charged. I won't be going to see even known ladies once this is out. Too much risk. The fun and games will stop in December.

 

Should have left well enough alone and not made a legal challenge to begin with.

 

Should have left well enough alone? What's a few women abused or killed because of the unsafe conditions recognized by the Supreme Court versus a guy's desire for fun and games.

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

Should have left well enough alone? What's a few women abused or killed because of the unsafe conditions recognized by the Supreme Court versus a guy's desire for fun and games.

It's not much worst then all the guys who are extremely worried about a price increase before worrying about getting arrested or the safety of the sex workers...

[elroy2000 190]

I seem to have stirred a pot. What I meant was not that the SPs in Ottawa actually have lists, but you can't tell me there aren't a substantial number of "clients" sitting in the house that are going to vote the party line on this.

 

Additional Comments:

I seem to have stirred a pot. What I meant was not that the SPs in Ottawa actually have lists, but you can't tell me there aren't a substantial number of "clients" sitting in the house that are going to vote the party line on this.

 

Additional Comments:

I seem to have stirred a pot. What I meant was not that the SPs in Ottawa actually have lists, but you can't tell me there aren't a substantial number of "clients" sitting in the house that are going to vote the party line on this.

[fresh 8278]

The threat of exposing her Ottawa clients was done by the sp who did the challenge to the courts originally. She won in courts. Courts ordered gov to rewrite the law. and that's why she was at committee. She is retired so exposing a few former clients of hers won't hurt her.

I think the gov knows this too will be challenged in the courts. but if they make the law and it gets thrown out then they can say to the group of voters who want them to do this 'look we tried but the courts messed it up'. its all about votes. not at all about women's safety. If they wanted it safe then they would make it all legal and not target the gents or the ladies. Regulate and license. then it would be easier to separate the legitimate industry from the darker side where people are being trafficked and abused.

That will unfortunately never happen.

[chuckertmg 1789]

I'm hoping this bill is a tempest in a teapot...

If there's no victim, LE currently don't have the will, money, or motivation. That would need to change. If the SP and client are both consensual and respectful, there's no great cause for concern

 

So perhaps a bit more caution as clients, but I personally doubt (hope it doesn't? Pray it doesn't?) that it will become a witch hunt.

I have been accused of being hopelessly naive before though!

 

I keep reading people's opinions that LE vice squads "don't have the will" or resources to enforce C-36, and I'm unsure what this is based on.

 

If you go to the CAF board from Alberta right at this moment, the two top stories on their forum are: "Just got busted - ladies in etown (Edmonton) watch out" and the second:

"Regina Leader-Post story on Vice Visits to Escorts". Here's the Regina L.P. article from today:

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Escorts+cashing+Sask+boom+cause+concern/10282338/story.html

 

In short it documents vice squad officers addressing the 303 raids they've staged in 3013/14, mostly focusing on visiting escorts from "down East" on the theory that they're being trafficked - arrests so far: 0 out of 303 raids; but intimidation and forcing them out of hotels: 303 for 303.

 

In Winnipeg they haven't been so polite - the raid of a visiting escort from Montreal in her high end condo reported on the prairie/pacific board was not done by polite knocking on the door, but rather with a swat team in full bug suits "looking for drugs", or pimps or whatever. So post Bill C-36 they'll be looking for drugs, pimps and people paying for sex. Instead of a ten minute lecture the guy who happens to be in the shower will face criminal code charges. It's likely the laptop and cellphone they seized has contact information on them. No proof of money exchanged maybe, but still...

 

I don't know why people think the current pattern of enforcement, erratic and inconsistent as it is, is just going to go away.

[cinelli 22184]

The Operation Northern spotlight got a serious amount of flak in January when they did part one, especially in Ottawa, where they found no one coerced, no one under 19, and they focused only on sps who were clearly independents

 

Yet the police press release is carefully worded to make it look like a huge success.

Careful re-reading and fact checking reveals it to be a bunch of baloney. It is closer to patting themselves on the back than being honest.

there is this service in Toronto that books hotels for sps

Everyone who travels for work knows that you can get huge discounts for booking lots of rooms on a regular basis.

Cops spend a lot of money on travel junkets and know this.

There is nothing wrong with a bunch of people getting together and booking as a group.

 

the story about the 12 year old (in Winnipeg) is false. Winnipeg never found the 12 year old during anything related to sex work, but most media stories are including it

The Winnipeg operation was run in tandem with an operation tracking down children missing from foster care or on probation. The BS artists in the Durham police carefully omitted that to make themselves look good.

 

Stuff like this really makes me lose respect for the police.

They have a tough job and most are decent people.

It seems their management are the problem.

There is good reason our own street level cops call Chief Clunis "Chief Clueless". He's a political flunky parachuted into a job he is unfit and incapable of performing. That is an insult to the several other candidates who would have done a far better job.

[roamingguy 300292]

The threat of exposing her Ottawa clients was done by the sp who did the challenge to the courts originally. She won in courts. Courts ordered gov to rewrite the law. and that's why she was at committee. She is retired so exposing a few former clients of hers won't hurt her.

 

It may not hurt her now because she is retired but it isn't about

her getting hurt. Trust is about character, and if she truly believed and brought the case all the way to the SCC because the prostitution related offences in the criminal code put women at risk, and she wanted them to be safe, then her comments/threats have the opposite effect. Now a lot of men are reluctant to be screened/verified, fearing in the future they may be outed. Her comments if anything have a spin off effect of ladies being put at risk, because prospective clients will not want to be screened, and screening is a safety tool for ladies.

I understand her anger. But outing a client, or former client has in the big picture, a counter effect to the original reason for bringing the case to the SCC. Namely clients now will be less likely to comply with screening, another tool used to ensure the safety of ladies.

And retired or not, trust and confidentiality is forever, not just while a lady is a companion. There are things I've shared, beyond just screening information, and had shared with me with a lady. I expect those things to remain between us, just as she expects things she said to remain confidential. Trust doesn't have a lifespan. Well it does, take any secrets to the grave with you. And that is what Bedford should do, and she shouldn't have threatened to out anyone.

A rambling

 

RG