Nine Dancers Charged

[booboobear]

Re: Re: wrong priorities

So financial frauds and copyright thefts should also not be prosecuted?

I think he is comparing guns and weapons to alleged sex crimes not financial fraud.

I don't see how the 2 are similar.

Sex between 2 consenting people versus financial fraud.


Sex should not be a crime.

 

[oldjones]

Re: Re: Re: wrong priorities

I think he is comparing guns and weapons to alleged sex crimes not financial fraud.

I don't see how the 2 are similar.

Sex between 2 consenting people versus financial fraud.


Sex should not be a crime.

Actually, what he was so intemperately saying—and sukdeep was pointing out the weakness of—was that crimes that do physical harm are the ones the police should pursue. Just another of those ill-considered, blanket statements that are so often made here.

I think that the cops should use every avenue to catch, charge and jail for life any parents who spank, or confine their kids, but they should ignore me "getting lucky" at the MP—no harm is done—and the guy who takes Ken Thomson for $1000, in a used car scam—likewise no harm is done. Blankets like that.

And as many posts have shown: In Canada, sex isn't a crime, even if it's commercial sex. It's providing the place, having the communication, using force, the ages and power relationships involved, and accepting the avails that are the crimes. So saying sex isn't a crime kinda' falls flat.

OK we know none of us are going to march in a Free Ginger demo tomorrow, but tell me if she opened next to your kid's daycare, that you wouldn't be eager to see some of those 'crimes' pursued. Blanket statements are always bad ;-)

But maybe, between the blankets, there are ways short of SWAT teams and judges in robes to deal with nuisances like too-obvious MPs. And if you really think about what's bad and what's really not, you probably can find something you could put in a letter or phone call to a councillor.

 

[goodtime]

Who is the knucklehead at York P that decided on releasing their names? Could this be a ploy to deflect public pressure as no progress has been made with the MPAs murder case?

To LE out there, this could devaste people's lives. These are someone's daugther or mother. Does the privacy act gets thrown out the window the minute someone is charged?

They are not Sexual Predators that would harm society!

Agreed this is wrong but it is consenual between two adult while the percieved harm is small. Slap their wrists and move on.

I wonder if names of drug dealers that sell to minors are subject to the same treatment. Shouldn't more effort be devoted to gang gun shootings? To me they are far demaging to society. York and T.O. the gun and pot captial of Canada.

Put yourself in the other person's shoes. How would you feel if your name is published all over the media connected to something negative?

In the mind of most, incl terb, the parties involved are deem guilty before stand trail.

And to all those Ambulance chasers, Terbites who intend to go to Newmarket court to see of the girls, shame on you. Don't forget it
could be one of us some day.

 

[tboy]

The only way I could see these "extras" as being in any way criminal is if the dancers were coerced or forced to perfom these acts as a basis for their employment. But then the management of the club should be the ones charged, along with the dancers.

At this time the laws are pretty specific about what can and what can't occur at a strip club. While I would enjoy some of these extras, the rules are the rules and the clubs should follow them.

As for the location of the club and the housing that is going on nearby, the club owners will have to realize that their type of business isn't going to be welcome and start planning for a re-location.

This whole thing simply supports the idea of red light districts where anyone not wanting to be exposed to this type of activity can simply "not go there". I know there are pros and cons to this setup but I think the pros far outweigh the cons.

As open minded hobbyists we may not agree with the laws being enforced in this manner but I can see this as LE keeping things under control. Now any other club that offers "extras" will either tone it down, or halt the activities. If LE didn't periodically lay charges such as this things might get out of control.

 

[booboobear]

This whole thing simply supports the idea of red light districts where anyone not wanting to be exposed to this type of activity can simply "not go there". I know there are pros and cons to this setup but I think the pros far outweigh the cons.

As open minded hobbyists we may not agree with the laws being enforced in this manner but I can see this as LE keeping things under control. Now any other club that offers "extras" will either tone it down, or halt the activities. If LE didn't periodically lay charges such as this things might get out of control.

I agree sort of with the red light districts but it doesn't have to be that extreme . Children can turn on the tv at night even at 8.00 p.m. and see explicit sex so I don't think walking by a stri club will harm them.

They shouldn't grant a strip club licence in residential areas but if a club exists it should be allowed to stay or bought out.

As far as LE is concerned i don't think they belong in a strip club. I don't care how far things go as long as they are discreet in the bar. I guess it all depends on what you think should be allowed in a strip club, as far as I am concerned as long as both parties agree there should be no limits. I know my thinking might be a little permissive for some .

 

[gala]

Those of you who argue against publishing the names of people accused of crimes, what are you really advocating? Do you want the police to be able to arrest and detain people without revealing who they have in custody? It is my belief that the police should be REQUIRED to post the names of anyone they have in custody and the reason why that person has been detained.

I can imagine the police holding someone arbitrarily in jail and then saying "We didn't want to violate his rights to privacy by telling anybody that we arrested him."

For a similar reason when these dancers get into court their names are going to be part of the public court record, possibly posted up on the internet somewhere. Anybody here could go and sit in on their trial, or get a transcript of the court record later, to check that these women are given a fair day in court, or to see that justice is served, depending on your view.

I understand how embarassing and damaging it can be to have your name posted up when the charge has a sexual aspect--but the alternative is to give the police and the courts a free hand to detain people arbitrarily and secretly. You can't just say "only secret for sex offenses" because then the police will just go around accusing anyone they dislike of a trumped up sexual offense--just so they can be made to disappear.

 

[Meesh]

I think we must differentiate between this board, and a free press.

Certainly, the free press should, unless ordered by the court, be free to publish the names of the accused.

But this board is NOT part of the free press, it is a hobbyists board. I agree with TERB's policy of not publishing personal information, even when that information is available elsewhere.

 

[booboobear]

Those of you who argue against publishing the names of people accused of crimes, what are you really advocating? Do you want the police to be able to arrest and detain people without revealing who they have in custody
.

Unless I am wrong don't they do that now. If I was arrested for a minor crime like shopliftting I don't think they would or should publish my name.

This is Canada I don't think they detain people people for lengthy periods just because they don't publish their names.


I see no reason for mentioning names of people accused of non violent crimes or victimless crimes other than smering their reputation.

 

[oldjones]

Not so easy:

When it's a murderer, a rapist or a child molester, everyone wants the police to reveal names—convicted or not. When it's our favourite dancers; privacy is suddenly all-important. If you renovated a house on The Track, you'd be demanding the cops publish names of johns to get them to move on. If they were constantly lifting things from your store, you wouldn't consider shoplifting minor and you'd be pleased as punch to have the whole neighbourhood know the crooks weren't getting away with it. But if it was just your little Janey and a tube of lipstick, "She never did it before…". Who's the victim if I have pix of naked girls under my mattress, leave me alone. But if they "appear" to be naked girl children, suddenly there's a mob on my doorstep to protect…? What victim? And the guy I buy weed from, we're victims of police oppression if our names are in the paper, but if he sells the same stuff to your eighteen-year old, "he's an evil pusher and should be outed". Ooh "outed" there's a word to ponder in this context.
This stuff is not easy: requiring the authorities to give notice of who they have taken into custody is one of our most precious civil rights. Just ask the guys at Guantanamo, whoever they are. Or look up the definition of an "oubliette". Police discretion's a great thing when it runs our way, and painful when we have to explain what we were up to that night. But the only real fix is to the laws themselves. You know: Talk it up, join a party, talk it up, write a letter, talk it up, vote, beginagain.

 

[booboobear]

Re: Not so easy:

When it's a murderer, a rapist or a child molester, everyone wants the police to reveal names—convicted or not. When it's our ". Ooh "outed" there's a word to ponder in this context.
This stuff is not easy:

With all respect after reading your long discourse I don't know where you stand.

We can't decide laws on a personal situation basis.

 

[gala]

booboo: if you are charged with shoplifting you typically aren't taken into custody. in any case, your name WILL be published when you get to your trial for theft.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

Were the 9 dancers charged with public communicating? You don't hear of that happening very often in a SC, usually only outdoors.

It seems that in the last couple of years the morality squads and by-law inspectors had been often avoiding criminal charges in favour of by-law fines for SCs and MPs. Is the recent bunch of criminal charges a result of the Brampton case that told the cities that their by-laws could not be used to control morality, only the federal criminal code can?

 

[oldjones]

Re: Re: Not so easy:

With all respect after reading your long discourse I don't know where you stand.

We can't decide laws on a personal situation basis.

I instinctively disagree with single sentence answers to socio-legal questions. The issues always are more complicated than the person firing off the response recognized. That kind of everyman's sound-bite makes us less thoughtful, rather than more and so we become poorer citizens who can only debate by name-calling. Almost nothing worth talking about is simple.

But you asked: I believe the bawdy house and 'communication for the purpose' laws should be removed from the Criminal Code, along with public nudity, indecent performance and such. Likewise pretty much all obscenity/pornography legislation should limit only public display and juvenile access. As you say: no victims.

These are all nuisance control measures that municipal bylaws can deal with. The criminal law should only involve coerced or deceitful participation, especially where minors are concerned, and all the sex-tourist laws should be put on hold, until we're prepared to criminally prosecute, as we do here, all drunk drivers apprehended abroad—to name names: Premier Gordon Campbell of BC. Sorry, personal crusade.

Oh well, to get the list over with: any drug less addictive, or deadly, or permanently harmful than alcohol and tobacco, should, on principle, be legally available to adults, subject only to appropriate provincial regulation: by prescription, in LCBO's, no impaired driving etc. etc.

But I bet it's publishing names you meant: Released on your own recognizance for later appearance should mean your privacy is protected because you haven't been found guilty, and you've been determined not to be a danger. The only purpose to releasing the names of unconvicted people is to protect the public. If the public needs protection, the 'bad guy' should either get bail i.e. a bailor is watching their investment and protecting the public, or still be in jail. Only then—Bail or Jail—would I say, let's have the names, all the names, no police discretion.

Now: are the media required to publish any, some, all of the provided names? Who gets to pick and choose whose reputation goes in the terlet? Ain't we the gossipy species? It'll never end, will it?

 

[booboobear]

booboo: if you are charged with shoplifting you typically aren't taken into custody. in any case, your name WILL be published when you get to your trial for theft.

If this is the case I stand corrected but where is it published I don't see it in the local large dailys.
I don't think the Star publishes the names of everyone caught stealing $ 10 worth of items from Wal Mart.

 

[booboobear]

Re: Re: Re: Not so easy:

I instinctively disagree with single sentence answers to socio-legal questions. The issues always are more complicated than the person firing off the response recognized. That kind of everyman's sound-bite makes us less thoughtful, rather than more and so we become poorer citizens who can only debate by name-calling. Almost nothing worth talking about is simple.




Now: are the media required to publish any, some, all of the provided names? Who gets to pick and choose whose reputation goes in the terlet? Ain't we the gossipy species? It'll never end, will it?

I agree mr old jones life is not simple . We should never assume
however that a short reply means less thought.
I think I basically agree with what you said in your lengthy reply and you are right we are a gossipy species , oh well maybe we will evolve perfectly in another million years or so.
Till then keep smiling

 

[gala]

booboo: The newspapers don't very often carry stories about minor crimes at all. What I meant was that your name will be published by the courts when they get around to hearing your case. Depending on the court they might have a website with a posted schedule of what trials are being heard when, including the name of the defendent and the charge, etc.

Not only will your name be published, but in effect your case will become a part of the case law--forever accessible and searchable by others who are looking for a similar case to their own so that they can argue some decision in their case should be the same as in yours. For the upper level courts (appeals, etc.) all this information is posted on a website and is permanently searchable by anyone via the internet (see: canlii.org, etc.)

I kind of agree with Old Jones: Unless you are detained, and until you actually appear in open court to face charges, there isn't any good reason to publish your name. It's possible the charges against you will be dropped before it goes to trial and in that case there was never any reason to smear your reputation.