Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.

[colt]

I agree with colt, but we are not exactly talking about a simple ''profession''. We are talking about the right to have sex with who you want under the terms you decide. We are talking about making personnal life choice, which is not so different than your choice of religion, marital status, etc.
Like TeasePlease, I would argue that it is a fundamental right, on the basis that people have the right to do what they want with their sexuality. Not that you have a right to demand sex per se, but that people have the right to make their sex decisions for themselves. If two consenting adults decide to do something in private it is their right.

However, Section 1 of the Charter says that your rights can be limited if the law has a good reason for it. The argument would be that preventing consenting adults to buy sex is meant to prevent human trafficking. This goal is serious enough I think, but in my opinion the effect of the law would be clearly disproportionate to the objective, since most prostitutes are consenting and most clients are not dangerous and not interested in a slave.

I really think there are two different conversations going on here. Siocnarf et al. are arguing their opinion on why the law is unconstitutional or overbroad. Others, including myself, are arguing what we think the Courts will do with the law. For example Siocnarf said that, in his opinion,sexual acts for consideration, where both parties are consenting adults, is a "personal life choice" no different than marriage or religion. It is fine to hold that opinion but it has to be acknowledged that there is not a single legal authority that supports it. The right to engage in sexual acts for consideration has never been held by any court to be a "Fundamental human right". So it is all well and good to say, "Well I don't see why it couldn't be argued that this is a fundamental human right" but the question is meaningless. It is like people who ask, "Can I sue someone for (insert hypothetical scenario". The answer is always the same - yes, of course you can argue/sue all you want but what you really want to be asking is, "will I be successful if I argue/sue". And absent an established legal authority, perhaps from another country or a very persuasive legal paper from a well respected expert, I don't think any court is going to hold that engaging in sexual acts for consideration is a "fundamental human right".

As much as people want to argue that C-36 is concerned with human trafficking and underage prostitution that is most certainly not what the government is relying on. The government's argument, with studies (half baked or not) to support the argument is that:

Prostitution is an extremely dangerous activity that poses a risk of violence and psychological harm to those subjected to it, regardless of the venue or legal framework in which it takes place, both from purchasers of sexual services and from third parties.

Prostitution reinforces gender inequalities in society at large by normalizing the treatment of primarily women’s bodies as commodities to be bought and sold. In this regard prostitution harms everyone in society by sending the message that sexual acts can be bought by those with money and power. Prostitution allows men, who are the primary purchasers of sexual services, paid access to female bodies, therefore demeaning and degrading the human dignity of all women and girls by entrenching a clearly grounded practice in Canadian society.


This is a direct quote from the Technical paper. The notion that the government has not learned anything from R. v. Bedford and is going to rely solely on trafficking and underage prostitution as the sources of harm is beyond naive. It is fine to say, "If two consenting adults decide to do something in private that is their right". Except it is not their absolute right. Two consenting adults cannot, in private, possess or traffic in a wide variety of prohibited and controlled substances for example - because the government has decided, and the courts have agreed, that the traffic of controlled substances harms the wider community and the harm is not limited to the two participants.

I really wonder if those who think the SCC is going to strike down this law have looked at the Supreme Court lately? Do you see alot of really liberal attitudes? While the Court appears to have flexed its muscles for the Harper government recently and kicked them to the curb quite a few times lately, the fact is that the McLaughlin Court is extremely conservative when it comes to criminal law. It has significantly limited the breadth of the Charter (i.e., police free to question an accused without counsel present, even if counsel is requested; made it much more difficult to get evidence obtained via a breach of the Charter excluded). I personally will be shocked if the Court has any issue with the government outlawing the purchase of sexual services.
.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Knowingly. Interesting angle. Hadn't thought of that. Excellent insight!


No no. Communicating is only chargeable for the sp if it's near a school or playground. And consideration isn't illegal for her. She can sell. Selling implies consideration. Its buying sex for consideration that is illegal.



Again, fascinating angle. Cops would have to break a few c36 laws just to sting. Hmm!



Nope, see above answer re:consideration & selling



This! ^. Immunity cannot be written into a law. Its assumed based on the exclusions.

With respect my dear, I don't think you're grasping the distinction between the concept of an offence that is committed, and immunity for prosecution of that offence.

Section 286.5 later specifically grants immunity for SPs communicating (except near kids) and benefiting (as well aiding and abetting which is a separate discussion) if they are selling their own sexual services.

Since sections 286.2 (benefiting offence) and 286.4 (advertising offence) use the word 'everyone' to broaden the scope of the provision, the government had to create section 286.5 to immunize prostitutes against the prosecution of those offences committed in the aforementioned sections.

Without section 286.5, prostitutes would be guilty for communicating and advertising too.

(See my post #300 quoting the relevant provisions if you don't believe me).

 

[Siocnarf]

...The right to engage in sexual acts for consideration has never been held by any court to be a "Fundamental human right".

......Prostitution is an extremely dangerous activity that poses a risk of violence and psychological harm to those subjected to it, regardless of the venue or legal framework in which it takes place, ....In this regard prostitution harms everyone in society by sending the message that sexual acts can be bought by those with money and power....demeaning and degrading the human dignity of all women and girls...

True, that specific act has not been declared a legal right yet. I'm saying the argument can very well be made that it should and there is no valid reason why it should not be a right. Doing what you want with your sexuality is a fundamental human right. For many people that includes buying and selling sex. I would argue that it is included in Section 7 under Liberty. Like I said that right can be limited if the government has reasons that are demonstrably justified.
...
These last arguments you cite are just ex cathedra statements from the government, and are demonstrably false. Once it is established that C-36 is a breach of section 7 (for example), the government is going to have to back up those empty statements with facts.

 

[colt]

Again as I've said before. They are breaking the very same law they are trying to enforce in the name of enforcing it. Furthermore, the admissibility of such circumstantial evidence is of little value. Your logical thinking is:

1) Cop breaks the law and propositions a women for sex for money, she agrees
.

Except under C-36 communicating for the purposes is no longer illegal - as long as it isn't done anywhere where children would normally be expected to be present. So an officer could, theoretically, engage a provider in conversation, state that he was looking to purchase sexual services and obtain information from the provider without ever breaking the law - so long as the officer did not go to the final step and obtain sexual services for consideration.

 

[colt]

Exactly. I know that such papers or bulletins are no substitute for the law, but can they be relied upon by the courts to ascertain the meaning of ambiguous terms?

I don't know of a specific case where a Technical Paper has been relied upon to assist in statutory interpretation but I imagine it would be admissible. White papers, Hansard debates, etc. have all been used in this fashion.

 

[MPAsquared]

I really think there are two different conversations going on here. Siocnarf et al. are arguing their opinion on why the law is unconstitutional or overbroad. Others, including myself, are arguing what we think the Courts will do with the law. For example Siocnarf said that, in his opinion,sexual acts for consideration, where both parties are consenting adults, is a "personal life choice" no different than marriage or religion. It is fine to hold that opinion but it has to be acknowledged that there is not a single legal authority that supports it. The right to engage in sexual acts for consideration has never been held by any court to be a "Fundamental human right". So it is all well and good to say, "Well I don't see why it couldn't be argued that this is a fundamental human right" but the question is meaningless. It is like people who ask, "Can I sue someone for (insert hypothetical scenario". The answer is always the same - yes, of course you can argue/sue all you want but what you really want to be asking is, "will I be successful if I argue/sue". And absent an established legal authority, perhaps from another country or a very persuasive legal paper from a well respected expert, I don't think any court is going to hold that engaging in sexual acts for consideration is a "fundamental human right".

As much as people want to argue that C-36 is concerned with human trafficking and underage prostitution that is most certainly not what the government is relying on. The government's argument, with studies (half baked or not) to support the argument is that:

Prostitution is an extremely dangerous activity that poses a risk of violence and psychological harm to those subjected to it, regardless of the venue or legal framework in which it takes place, both from purchasers of sexual services and from third parties.

Prostitution reinforces gender inequalities in society at large by normalizing the treatment of primarily women’s bodies as commodities to be bought and sold. In this regard prostitution harms everyone in society by sending the message that sexual acts can be bought by those with money and power. Prostitution allows men, who are the primary purchasers of sexual services, paid access to female bodies, therefore demeaning and degrading the human dignity of all women and girls by entrenching a clearly grounded practice in Canadian society.


This is a direct quote from the Technical paper. The notion that the government has not learned anything from R. v. Bedford and is going to rely solely on trafficking and underage prostitution as the sources of harm is beyond naive. It is fine to say, "If two consenting adults decide to do something in private that is their right". Except it is not their absolute right. Two consenting adults cannot, in private, possess or traffic in a wide variety of prohibited and controlled substances for example - because the government has decided, and the courts have agreed, that the traffic of controlled substances harms the wider community and the harm is not limited to the two participants.

I really wonder if those who think the SCC is going to strike down this law have looked at the Supreme Court lately? Do you see alot of really liberal attitudes? While the Court appears to have flexed its muscles for the Harper government recently and kicked them to the curb quite a few times lately, the fact is that the McLaughlin Court is extremely conservative when it comes to criminal law. It has significantly limited the breadth of the Charter (i.e., police free to question an accused without counsel present, even if counsel is requested; made it much more difficult to get evidence obtained via a breach of the Charter excluded). I personally will be shocked if the Court has any issue with the government outlawing the purchase of sexual services.
.

I'm not arguing the government's intent when writing a paper (especially with the misinformation they used to create it). I'm simply stating what I have been told through many meetings with local & provincial enforcement.

I can only speak for Toronto, and in relation to body rub parlors.

With respect my dear, I don't think you're grasping the distinction between the concept of an offence that is committed, and immunity for prosecution of that offence.

Section 286.5 later specifically grants immunity for SPs communicating (except near kids) and benefiting (as well aiding and abetting which is a separate discussion) if they are selling their own sexual services.

Since sections 286.2 (benefiting offence) and 286.4 (advertising offence) use the word 'everyone' to broaden the scope of the provision, the government had to create section 286.5 to immunize prostitutes against the prosecution of those offences committed in the aforementioned sections.

Without section 286.5, prostitutes would be guilty for communicating and advertising too.

(See my post #300 quoting the relevant provisions if you don't believe me).

Dear, ugh. I grasp plenty GP. SP's don't have immunity written into the law. Selling sex is not a crime, nor communicating or advertising (provided it's not near a school or playground). "Immunity" is implied because there is no charge.

Communicating near said areas = a criminal charge for the sp

A 3rd party advertising someone else's sexual services = a criminal charge

Selling for the sex worker is neither legal nor illegal. Of course she sells sexual services for money. She ain't selling for peanuts honey. Her accepting consideration or advertising such is not illegal.

Those clauses are to deter pimps, 3rd parties, and the excess of advertisements. Not to deter a sex worker from operating. They attack the sex worker indirectly thru the law via criminalizing clients, working co-operatively, communicating near kids areas, etc.

Lastly, there is a difference between the written law, practical application, & actual enforcement.

 

[GPIDEAL]

True, that specific act has not been declared a legal right yet. I'm saying the argument can very well be made that it should and there is no valid reason why it should not be a right. Doing what you want with your sexuality is a fundamental human right. For many people that includes buying and selling sex. Like I said that right can be limited if the government has reasons that are demonstrably justified.
...
These last arguments you cite are just ex cathedra statements from the government, and are demonstrably false. Once it is established that C-36 is a breach of section 7 (for example), the government is going to have to back up those empty statements with facts.

One can argue that it's demeaning and degrading for a guy to have to pay for it ha ha.

 

[Titalian]

This too is incorrect. There is way too much false legal information going on in these C-36 threads which is kind of sad. There is absolutely no need for the accused to " demonstrable intent beyond a reasonable doubt to induce criminality being the motive for so doing". This inducement can be done intentionally or unintentionally, the police motive doesn't matter at all.

From the SCC:



For a police officer to dress provocatively and proposition random people violates both parts of the test. An example of a legal method for police would be to set up a fake BP ad, wait for the guy to come into a hotel room and request sexual services from an undercover cop who can lie and say they are a sex worker. In such an instance, they merely have just provided an opportunity to commit an offense and the criminal would have just stepped into it. The police cannot do much more than that. If the undercover cop was naked and started kissing the man of her own accord for instance, they would be going ""beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence".

Thank you, this is very informative !!

 

[GPIDEAL]

Dear, ugh. I grasp plenty GP. SP's don't have immunity written into the law. Selling sex is not a crime, nor communicating or advertising (provided it's not near a school or playground). "Immunity" is implied because there is no charge.

Communicating near said areas = a criminal charge for the sp

A 3rd party advertising someone else's sexual services = a criminal charge

Selling for the sex worker is neither legal nor illegal. Of course she sells sexual services for money. She ain't selling for peanuts honey. Her accepting consideration or advertising such is not illegal.

Those clauses are to deter pimps, 3rd parties, and the excess of advertisements. Not to deter a sex worker from operating. They attack the sex worker indirectly thru the law via criminalizing clients, working co-operatively, communicating near kids areas, etc.

Lastly, there is a difference between the written law, practical application, & actual enforcement.

You need to know what my disagreement is about. I'm disagreeing with tegR's comment in post #297 which is this:

As far as I know, there is not in fact any actual written "immunity provisions" - the situation is more that the law is written in such a way as to make almost no action by an SP actually unlawful, so its not that they are immune from charges but that no possible charges exist.

But that is not correct.

There IS an immunity provision - Section 286.5. It's right there in black and white (although I quoted it in blue, ha ha).

This provision operates to make communicating (other than near kids) and benefiting effectively or ultimately LEGAL, because the offences committed are not prosecutable. Capisce?

There is NO exception in the earlier offence sections 286.2 (benefit) and 286.4 (communicate) for prostitutes if they sell their own sexual services. Go ahead and read those provisions yourself.

It's only 286.5 that immunity from prosecution is granted for those aforementioned offences.

Also, immunity is NOT implied like you say.

Here's what the government's Technical Paper states about immunity (my bold emphasis added):

Bill C-36 would expressly immunize from prosecution individuals who receive a material benefit from their own sexual services or who advertise those services. It would also immunize those who sell their own sexual services for any part they may play in the purchasing, material benefit, procuring or advertising offences in relation to the sale of their own sexual services. Such prosecutions would otherwise normally be available by operation of general provisions of the criminal law that impose criminal liability on persons for various forms of participation in offences committed by other persons (i.e., liability for aiding, abetting or counseling another to commit an offence, conspiring with another person to commit an offence or being an accessory after the fact to an offence). These immunities would mean that individuals could not be prosecuted for selling their own sexual services, whether independently or cooperatively, from fixed indoor or other locations, as long as the only benefit received is derived from the sale of their own sexual services.

So you see, immunity is EXPRESSLY granted, not implied.

Which begs another question if I'm right in my reading of the Bill or how it operates.

Can an SP be charged with an offence that is forever stayed because it is not prosecutable? If so, would the offence or charge stay on the books or her record?

 

[MPAsquared]

You need to know what my disagreement is about. I'm disagreeing with tegR's comment in post #297 which is this:



But that is not correct.

There IS an immunity provision - Section 286.5. It's right there in black and white (although I quoted it in blue, ha ha).

This provision operates to make communicating (other than near kids) and benefiting effectively or ultimately LEGAL, because the offences committed are not prosecutable. Capisce?

There is NO exception in the earlier offence sections 286.2 (benefit) and 286.4 (communicate) for prostitutes if they sell their own sexual services. Go ahead and read those provisions yourself.

It's only 286.5 that immunity from prosecution is granted for those aforementioned offences.

Also, immunity is NOT implied like you say.

Here's what the government's Technical Paper states about immunity (my bold emphasis added):

Bill C-36 would expressly immunize from prosecution individuals who receive a material benefit from their own sexual services or who advertise those services. It would also immunize those who sell their own sexual services for any part they may play in the purchasing, material benefit, procuring or advertising offences in relation to the sale of their own sexual services. Such prosecutions would otherwise normally be available by operation of general provisions of the criminal law that impose criminal liability on persons for various forms of participation in offences committed by other persons (i.e., liability for aiding, abetting or counseling another to commit an offence, conspiring with another person to commit an offence or being an accessory after the fact to an offence). These immunities would mean that individuals could not be prosecuted for selling their own sexual services, whether independently or cooperatively, from fixed indoor or other locations, as long as the only benefit received is derived from the sale of their own sexual services.

So you see, immunity is EXPRESSLY granted, not implied.

Which begs another question if I'm right in my reading of the Bill or how it operates.

Can an SP be charged with an offence that is forever stayed because it is not prosecutable? If so, would the offence or charge stay on the books or her record?

Right, and what I'm telling you is that during the Senate hearings, that came into question & it was stated that immunity cannot be written in the law. They did not amend that or any of the other clauses that didn't make sense. Immunity is not something government can write into law. Its implied because there is no criminal charge for selling your own sexual services.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Right, and what I'm telling you is that during the Senate hearings, that came into question & it was stated that immunity cannot be written in the law. They did not amend that or any of the other clauses that didn't make sense. Immunity is not something government can write into law. Its implied because there is no criminal charge for selling your own sexual services.

You're talking about the legal validity of the statute as written, not about the specific words or sections. Ahhh. Okay

Good night and thanks for putting up with my rant.

 

[Siocnarf]

Can an SP be charged with an offence that is forever stayed because it is not prosecutable? If so, would the offence or charge stay on the books or her record?

Maybe she could be charged for advertising sex online and then have to prove that it was for her own services and not someone else. This is another unlikely scenario, but I am just talking in theory. If they wanted to give a hard time to someone, maybe they can still lay charges even if there is no chance that it goes to trial. Advertising is a hybrid offense meaning I think she would have a record of arrest.

 

[Toronto`s Finest]

NO ONE will be charged for advertising for sex BECAUSE Now Magazine and Backpages are restricting any wording hinting at sexual acts or services. THEREFORE these ads DO NOT come under the category of advertising sexual services. I said it before & will say again: a few Police agencies in the Canadian cities have said will be doing Biz as usual ( Using that laws as tools to rescue children / Human Trafficed & forced Prostitution and keeping streets and Neighbourhoods free of Street Nusence )

 

[tegR]

NO ONE will be charged for advertising for sex BECAUSE Now Magazine and Backpages are restricting any wording hinting at sexual acts or services. THEREFORE these ads DO NOT come under the category of advertising sexual services. I said it before & will say again: a few Police agencies in the Canadian cities have said will be doing Biz as usual ( Using that laws as tools to rescue children / Human Trafficed & forced Prostitution and keeping streets and Neighbourhoods free of Street Nusence )

Unfortunately, these semi-private statements of intent do not provide anything beyond a false sense of security. Leadership and policy can change. What is truly horrifying about that situation the possibility of prosecution after-the-fact introduced with the new laws.

Previously, you had to literally be "found in" an incall to be charged, and immediately upon exiting the premises your exposure to being charged for having visited that incall ceases forever. Under these circumstances an informed client who heard of a "new sheriff in town" who intended to actively enforce the law old laws, could cease the hobby secure in the knowledge that previous "crimes" could never come back to haunt them legally speaking.

C36 introduces an entirely new situation, wherein clients can be charged long after the fact for either communication or the actual purchase of sex.

So lets say today's sheriff clearly says, and demonstrates, he will look the other way and never charge anyone who is not making a nuisance or ass-hat of themselves, and you believe him and you partake of the hobby reasonably secure in trusting the informal amnesty in place. In so doing you create usage tracks like communications logs and eyewitness accounts of your deeds. This evidence of criminal activity is no threat to you only as long as the informal amnesty persists. You can always be charged a month, or year or five years later.

Imagine for example a search warrant executed on the phone and computer records of an agency, which comes out of the blue by a new chief or a crusader detective, or even from out of local jurisdiction (RCMP maybe) and bulk-charges for communication then being slapped on 50 or 100 individuals in a big "bust". You might have used this agency once, 3 years ago, and secure in the knowledge that enforcement was lax at the time and by policy of your local police... but then suddenly you're blindsided with a charge and name in the paper. I can see this being executed in a very similar fashion to the child porn ring busts that get splashed over the news once or twice a year, to show the public "something is being done."

IMO this possibility of charges after the fact is truly horrifying.

 

[MPAsquared]

Unfortunately, these semi-private statements of intent do not provide anything beyond a false sense of security. Leadership and policy can change. What is truly horrifying about that situation the possibility of prosecution after-the-fact introduced with the new laws.

Previously, you had to literally be "found in" an incall to be charged, and immediately upon exiting the premises your exposure to being charged for having visited that incall ceases forever. Under these circumstances an informed client who heard of a "new sheriff in town" who intended to actively enforce the law old laws, could cease the hobby secure in the knowledge that previous "crimes" could never come back to haunt them legally speaking.

C36 introduces an entirely new situation, wherein clients can be charged long after the fact for either communication or the actual purchase of sex.

So lets say today's sheriff clearly says, and demonstrates, he will look the other way and never charge anyone who is not making a nuisance or ass-hat of themselves, and you believe him and you partake of the hobby reasonably secure in trusting the informal amnesty in place. In so doing you create usage tracks like communications logs and eyewitness accounts of your deeds. This evidence of criminal activity is no threat to you only as long as the informal amnesty persists. You can always be charged a month, or year or five years later.

Imagine for example a search warrant executed on the phone and computer records of an agency, which comes out of the blue by a new chief or a crusader detective, or even from out of local jurisdiction (RCMP maybe) and bulk-charges for communication then being slapped on 50 or 100 individuals in a big "bust". You might have used this agency once, 3 years ago, and secure in the knowledge that enforcement was lax at the time and by policy of your local police... but then suddenly you're blindsided with a charge and name in the paper. I can see this being executed in a very similar fashion to the child porn ring busts that get splashed over the news once or twice a year, to show the public "something is being done."

IMO this possibility of charges after the fact is truly horrifying.

You watch too much TV. Lol

 

[GPIDEAL]

NO ONE will be charged for advertising for sex BECAUSE Now Magazine and Backpages are restricting any wording hinting at sexual acts or services. THEREFORE these ads DO NOT come under the category of advertising sexual services. I said it before & will say again: a few Police agencies in the Canadian cities have said will be doing Biz as usual ( Using that laws as tools to rescue children / Human Trafficed & forced Prostitution and keeping streets and Neighbourhoods free of Street Nusence )

No one will be charged? Do you have a crystal ball? Do you know if everyone is educated on this bill as you and others on this board? (I don't think you can make blanket or general statements like that).

The only ones who won't be charged are those who are smart enough to modify their advertisements to be C-36 compliant.

 

[tegR]

You watch too much TV. Lol

Quite possibly so.

Not enough to drink the kool-aid about black helicopters dropping SWAT teams into our bedrooms or undercovers infiltrating agencies or sitting outside incalls and arresting everyone who walks by on the street.

I only mention the above scenario because to me that seems like the path of least resistance to law a lot of charges for almost zero investigative and resource investment if LE ever decides to execute some flashy enforcement for the sake of saying they're doing something.

I hope I'm proven completely wrong and it is a scenario that never comes to pass.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Maybe she could be charged for advertising sex online and then have to prove that it was for her own services and not someone else. This is another unlikely scenario, but I am just talking in theory. If they wanted to give a hard time to someone, maybe they can still lay charges even if there is no chance that it goes to trial. Advertising is a hybrid offense meaning I think she would have a record of arrest.

If I was an SP, I would get a legal opinion on this. I don't trust the Conservatives. Sure they may not proceed to trial, but will there be situations or circumstances when a sex worker is burdened with a charge that doesn't stick, or threatened to be charged?

I'm not trying to scare monger here, but just throwing it on the table for discussion.

I would be outraged if there was the possibility of a charge, despite the immunity provisions against prosecution.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Unfortunately, these semi-private statements of intent do not provide anything beyond a false sense of security. Leadership and policy can change. What is truly horrifying about that situation the possibility of prosecution after-the-fact introduced with the new laws.

Previously, you had to literally be "found in" an incall to be charged, and immediately upon exiting the premises your exposure to being charged for having visited that incall ceases forever. Under these circumstances an informed client who heard of a "new sheriff in town" who intended to actively enforce the law old laws, could cease the hobby secure in the knowledge that previous "crimes" could never come back to haunt them legally speaking.

C36 introduces an entirely new situation, wherein clients can be charged long after the fact for either communication or the actual purchase of sex.

So lets say today's sheriff clearly says, and demonstrates, he will look the other way and never charge anyone who is not making a nuisance or ass-hat of themselves, and you believe him and you partake of the hobby reasonably secure in trusting the informal amnesty in place. In so doing you create usage tracks like communications logs and eyewitness accounts of your deeds. This evidence of criminal activity is no threat to you only as long as the informal amnesty persists. You can always be charged a month, or year or five years later.

Imagine for example a search warrant executed on the phone and computer records of an agency, which comes out of the blue by a new chief or a crusader detective, or even from out of local jurisdiction (RCMP maybe) and bulk-charges for communication then being slapped on 50 or 100 individuals in a big "bust". You might have used this agency once, 3 years ago, and secure in the knowledge that enforcement was lax at the time and by policy of your local police... but then suddenly you're blindsided with a charge and name in the paper. I can see this being executed in a very similar fashion to the child porn ring busts that get splashed over the news once or twice a year, to show the public "something is being done."

IMO this possibility of charges after the fact is truly horrifying.

Like MPAsquared said, your after-the-fact scenarios might be highly unlikely and simply alarmist.

I'm going to post some very useful information about the security of text messages and perhaps emails, including an article which might allay your fears here.

Furthermore, if somebody called me and said, "We are the police. We found your cell # and email in an escorts contact list.", my answer will be, "Is that all officer? I've been acquainted with the lady for years and have kept in touch to meet for a coffee or lunch, and see how she's doing after our government ruined her livelihood with Bill C-36. If there's nothing else gentlemen, I must be on my way. Good day to you officers.".

 

[GPIDEAL]

Quite possibly so.

Not enough to drink the kool-aid about black helicopters dropping SWAT teams into our bedrooms or undercovers infiltrating agencies or sitting outside incalls and arresting everyone who walks by on the street.

I only mention the above scenario because to me that seems like the path of least resistance to law a lot of charges for almost zero investigative and resource investment if LE ever decides to execute some flashy enforcement for the sake of saying they're doing something.

I hope I'm proven completely wrong and it is a scenario that never comes to pass.

You should have used a broker.