"The new Toronto Police Chief has to be mindful of community standards and going on a crusade could put him in conflict with local politicians"
This is quite true!!!
This is quite true!!!
ONCE C-36 is Law ..... Where will you Guys prefer INCALL?? HOTEL OR CONDO ?
- Thread starter Toronto`s Finest
- Start date
Bill C-36 even though a federal law looks like a law that will be enforce in Alberta. I'm willing to bet the crusade of John sweeps happens out there and mostly street prostitution.
It would depend on which city. Calgary's police chief is sort of a moralistic bible pounder and will probably want to enforce the spirit of the law, that of eradicating prostitution by reducing demand.
Edmonton municipal by-laws actually recognize the sexual nature of MP's and escort agencies. They will probably adjust their bylaws in order to conform to the Criminal Code, but I would think that they would not want to destroy the progress they have made with licensed sex-oriented businesses with respect to eliminating underage prostitution and exploitative practises. Which means that they will probably pay lip service to the new law.
But I think that they will still be after the street trade.
If they try that in Canada the case may be dismissed on grounds of illegal arrest, even if the SP testifies against you that you had sex & paid for it. Compare this case where the guy got off not guilty:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5161.html
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=157c77e4-9d4c-47c1-bc41-39000752dbd3
"More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty. A jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit...."
"The Supreme Court of Canada has since emphasized in R. v. Starr[7] that an effective way to explain the concept is to tell the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt "falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities." It is not enough to believe that the accused is probably guilty, or likely guilty. Proof of probable guilt, or likely guilt, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_Doubt
EXACTLY & as I have been saying it is because of this that Individuals CANNOT be arrested based purely on association with someone. There must be EVIDENCE of a crime committed.
Nothing prevents police from arresting someone, even if it is unfair. It happens all the time. It's only when the prosecutor realises that there is not enough evidence that charges are dropped, or the court acquits. In the meantime, you will have spent between 5,000 and 10,000 dollars for your lawyer.
I think that some police might still try to intercept people because of the association. What they do is try to get people to confess; that's all the evidence they need. It happens all the time because people talk too much. They could ask if you are the SP's boyfriend, for example. Say yes and you're off to the station. Say nothing if questioned by police, because 'they have ways of making you talk!'.
Or be your own lawyer/save yourself the 10K, print out a copy of the following & read it to the judge or jury in court:
"More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty. A jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit...."
"The Supreme Court of Canada has since emphasized in R. v. Starr[7] that an effective way to explain the concept is to tell the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt "falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities." It is not enough to believe that the accused is probably guilty, or likely guilty. Proof of probable guilt, or likely guilt, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_Doubt
Although the judge may take care of that himself, if the case ever gets to court, or it may be thrown out if the arresting officer fails to appear. As long as the accused keeps his mouth shut, & there is no certain evidence against him, it is highly likely to be a slam dunk case in his favor.
Goodbye Toronto.
Hello Miami until this blows over.
This bone headed move may depress the Canadian Dollar.
Conventions and festivals have not been booking Toronto for the great weather.
Indirect economic effects on the Toronto economy may be greater than anticipated.
For sure one way of getting an education without taking on huge debts may be eliminated. Most of us who have been here a while have seen some tremendous success stories.
Maybe we should start a $1 million dollar fund for some unemployed John who is willing to be "caught" and be the test case. Some variant of this approach may already be in the works. We might be able to get Justin Bieber drunk and save a lot of money and time.
Hello Miami until this blows over.
This bone headed move may depress the Canadian Dollar.
Conventions and festivals have not been booking Toronto for the great weather.
Indirect economic effects on the Toronto economy may be greater than anticipated.
For sure one way of getting an education without taking on huge debts may be eliminated. Most of us who have been here a while have seen some tremendous success stories.
Maybe we should start a $1 million dollar fund for some unemployed John who is willing to be "caught" and be the test case. Some variant of this approach may already be in the works. We might be able to get Justin Bieber drunk and save a lot of money and time.
While your co-op may just manage to stay on the right side of the law, the men who want to purchase the services of its member/owners would have a much harder time. Under any fee-paying scheme I can imagine, the new law defines buyers as criminals, requiring the police only to establish the money-for-sex link in ways that US TV has made us all too familiar with.
MrPrezident HOW do you come to the idea that conventions are not being booked in Toronto by businesses esp from the U.S. based on C36??? Esp since in the U.S. prostitution is COMPLETELY illegal!! I don't think the Dollar will drop in value or other economic harms........ you are joking right!! 
The content of laws and how vigorously laws might be enforced can be two separate issues. No one wants to be the first person to find out how enthusiastically these laws will be enforced.
There are places in the US where something might be technically illegal but laws are not strictly enforced unless you put the behavior in an officer's face. Certainly a lot more "convention" type antics are tolerated in NY, Miami, and Las Vegas than in a small town in Mississippi.
Until there are arrests and then appeals the uncertainty will cause changes in economic behavior. Don't underestimate the direct and indirect economic costs.
In US cities where the hobby is more tolerated various screening services have evolved where you essentially need to prove that your place of employment is not the local police station.
There are places in the US where something might be technically illegal but laws are not strictly enforced unless you put the behavior in an officer's face. Certainly a lot more "convention" type antics are tolerated in NY, Miami, and Las Vegas than in a small town in Mississippi.
Until there are arrests and then appeals the uncertainty will cause changes in economic behavior. Don't underestimate the direct and indirect economic costs.
In US cities where the hobby is more tolerated various screening services have evolved where you essentially need to prove that your place of employment is not the local police station.
I had services in New York & Chicago. These cities put low priority on sexwork. Way more crimes to go after. Also not like the south were more Bible thumpers. Biz carried on just like in Toronto. Toronto is not a Bible thumping city & I DO NOT believe Cops will go on a moral crusade. The local Chief Crown Prosecutor & Chief of Police has other priorities & crime problems .... bigger crimes. Keep in mind these charges for clients will be summary convictions= minor charges/crime
Soooo how are you guys feeling about Hotels these days??? Think cops would even bother setting up a female cop as a escort in a Hotel to bust guys here in the Big City , TORONTO ?? I don't. What I read on Twitter & other news outlets Cops are not too much likeing C-36 other than using same as old laws .... to go after Street problem areas , underage , forced & Human Traffic
As long as you don't cause a disturbance in a hotel to attract attention, a john is safe. Otherwise, it might be a dicey situation if there's a confrontation with LE.
Why is the U.S. better?
Prostitution (buying and selling) is illegal, and some of those Bible thumping states take the time to run sting operations.
legmann said:
The concept of reasonable doubt is not a new thing. Merely reading this definition won't necessarily save your ass. A lawyer will ensure that the the prosecution doesn't establish reasonable doubt with competent counsel (i.e., cross-examination, ensuring improper evidence is not admitted, etc.). A do-it-yourself/cheap approach might not.
Incidentally, I've read a good book by a researcher who investigated the case against Lee Harvey Oswald. Part of his analysis involves establishing what is the confidence level necessary to reach "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is at least 95% probability, which has been confirmed by American jurisprudence.
P.S. People have gone to jail based on circumstantial evidence all the time.
Wilbur, you make valid comments here.
Sometimes, they will arrest just to intimidate people to talk. People really need to be educated on their rights, including sex workers.
BTW, I have a question. The advertising and benefit offences ALSO apply to SPs, however, they can't go to jail due to the separate immunity provisions. So does this mean the police can still arrest/charge SPs based on evidence of explicit advertising or receiving consideration from a john, just to harass them or elicit information to nab a john? Also, can SPs expunge those arrest records or charges based on their legislated immunity? (If not, then the leverage that police have over SPs in a C-36 world is something to consider).
