Reverdy explained the Coderre situation in a previous post. Montreal Police also published their official plan.
Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.
- Thread starter Toronto`s Finest
- Start date
Lots of US jurisdictions crack down heavily on prostitution. Prostitution hasn't gone away in those places. But neither has the sky fallen on the police forces, they are not overwhelmed by aggressive enforcement.I agree with that, but I never implied otherwise regarding Harper. With the number of challenges they had in the past Harper is certainly not afraid of another one. But this is such a small issue that I don't really see this law as some central plot to destroy the SCC. And like I said he's so obviously making all kind of unconstitutional decisions, no one is really surprised when they get overturned.
Provincial politicians and local LE on the other hand have to consider the realities and consequences of how they are going to enforce it; they don't live in a legislative fantasy-land. Most of them have things running smoothly and changing their ways of enforcement can have consequences that are going harm their communities and make their job more difficult.
It really depends on who is in power and what policy they want to implement. Get a Blair as chief of Toronto police and you will get community oriented, preventative policing without much moralizing. Get a Fantino in, whole different ball game. And yes, hard right conservatives do sometimes win elections in Toronto and appoint people like Julian Fantino to run the police.
I don't doubt that Montreal, being a much more lefty city, will enforce the law less, but in Toronto we waffle back and forth between being open minded liberals and prissy conservatives. Toronto is not a very liberal city, overall.
I think the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services violates two parts of the Charter of rights, the right of association and the right to liberty. If it was challenged the govt. would have to justify this law based on facts, not ideology.
Thanks for posting this. Quebec has always been more progressive in understanding the root problem with prostitution,Here's an article about the unveiling of SPVM's plan:
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/cops-to-focus-on-pimps-not-prostitutes
The plan itself can be found on the SPVM's website but is only available in French:
http://www.spvm.qc.ca/en/Fiches/Details/Prostitution-and-Human-Trafficking-for-Sexual-Exploitation
And here's an article discussing the shift in policy regarding MP's in Montreal (only in French):
http://journalmetro.com/actualites/...ntation-sur-les-salons-de-massage-a-lautomne/
Translation:
FYI, Anie Samson is in charge of public security, for the City of Montreal's Executive Committee.
Damn the conservatives !! They are not in touch what so ever. And I don't think they really care.
Non Conviction Records
You may find this link interesting and informative as it relates to criminal records, including non conviction records, as well as how it relates to crossing into the US.
http://ccla.org/our-work/public-saf...onviction-records/non-conviction-records-faq/
P.S. Courtesy of an anonymous Terbite (via PM).
You may find this link interesting and informative as it relates to criminal records, including non conviction records, as well as how it relates to crossing into the US.
http://ccla.org/our-work/public-saf...onviction-records/non-conviction-records-faq/
P.S. Courtesy of an anonymous Terbite (via PM).
There seems to be in all of these C - 36 posts attacks on Fuji by a core group of people who if they are not SPs then certainly advocate on behalf of SPs. Their collective position as I can distill it, in addition to heaping ridicule on Fuji and encouraging others to do likewise, is that the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada (remember it's not Bill C - 36 it's now the CCC) are unconstitutional and conviction of purchasers of sexual services is in any event unlikely to the point that clients (now Johns) should ignore the law. They all posit that they are compliant, their communication is compliant and they are not in violation of the law. They go on to suggest that what they are selling is companionship and not sexual services.
When Fuji points out that the amendments to the CCC criminalizes the purchase of sexual services, not the sale, because Parliament has determined all sellers of sexual services to be victims, a flurry of posts follow to criticize his "legal reasoning" and attempting to soothe everyone who reads, by ever increasing vitriol, that relax and everything will be ok. When Fuji responds with legitimate concerns on behalf of the clients who have something to lose by arrest and conviction, while the usual trio belittle him, they ultimately have no answer. They have no answer because it's going to get a lot worse for all of us for quite some time before it gets better.
Before I go on about why it was a brilliant political move to criminalize the purchase of sex (it has to do with the last time hard core social conservatives, hard core feminists and soccer moms agreed with anything), the doubters and the hopeful have suggested that the law will be struck down. I'm not so sure. Parliament has the authority to pass criminal law, it has the right to invoke laws that reduce harm, and if all providers of sexual services are victims, if this law reduces demand, it is at first blush, constitutional. That it is not perfect does not matter. There is no constitutional right to purchase sexual services.
The only possible basis upon which parts of the CCC might be determined to be unconstitutional is based on reasoning that the factors that were in play in Bedford are the same with these amendments. There is a slim chance in this regard. What is truly unfortunate is that in an ever increasingly socially liberal Canada, these laws are passed which repress a group of generally silent men. Johns are the new fags.
Of course the industry cannot afford to lose us, the wealthy, clean, safe and articulate client. The entire industry is scared to death about a drop in demand. The irony is that we are the guys who actually will pay $250 to speak with a provider and not have sex. And we are scared and ready to go. That of course folks is the point of the law.
We will be replaced by a less desireable group of customers. Of course the industry wants you to believe everything is ok. Will there be arrests. Of course there will. When and where is more problematic. The fixed locations established SPs incall locations and MPs will be the first targets (easy low hanging fruit). If course those are the core advertisers of this board and why the panic is palpable.
The reality is not based on hope for the best and faith. If I wanted that I would be in church. In the hard light of day when you are sitting in a police interrogation room while police investigate criminal activity, you will wonder what happened. Which gets me to my final point.
While none of us believe that this law is positive (because the good clients are not involved in anything other that a respite from an otherwise difficult world and that relatively younger women are exchanging time with otherwise older men for amounts that for us are inconsequential but not for the women we are with), we are puzzled by the sledgehammer approach.
Don't be puzzled. Because as set out above, while this law at all of our expense, it brings together the groups of otherwise disparate constituencies, the hard core conservatives who can cheer about something (since they can't outlaw abortion, gay sex, swingers or adulterers), hard core feminists (who cheered when the reviled Stephen Harper called all female sex workers victims), and our wives who know what we do but hate that we have an outlet since she can't use sex as a weapon against you. (I'm fortunately and happily divorced)
At worst this law is vote neutral for the government. It would not have been passed otherwise. And the PM loves to trumpet the new law. It doesn't make the news but for any of you who see our PM in person, he has not hesitated to triumph the protection of women with this new law. Read his speeches on line if the are posted.
So there you have it from a guy who was saved during difficult times in my life by being able to see escorts without the risk of criminal arrest and record. I wish this law weren't so but it is. I have nothing but love for everyone I met in this business and all the people on this board (mostly but not all - and those guys are mainly in the political section). Guys be careful out there (to use the words of the venerable Phil Esterhaus for those of you old enough to remember). I have seen trends in my life and know that trends cannot be fought. I have seen the halcyon days and they were good.
JTO
I have sifted through this thread and this is the the most insightful post by far.
The rest of the posts, barring the slanderous infighting, there is food for thought, but really it's just grasping for straws.
I am not like chicken little saying that the sky is falling, but the landscape on which we walk is certainly changing.
One thing is for certain with this new law and that is charges will be laid. Many have pointed out the low hanging fruit. Like a speed trap at the bottom of a hill, the police will certainly focus on easy targets first. This is a given.
How the police, with the guidance of the crown, proceed is the unknown. But, proceed they will.
Many talk about possible ways around it, burners, just companionship, etc. Until we know how the police/courts are proceeding with regards to the law, we have no idea of how to navigate these treacherous waters.
The law, in how it is written is pure genius. Making the consumer the criminal is the best way to curb the oldest profession. They knew that they could never put an end to it, but they could put a big dent in it.
Many of us have lives that would be profoundly affected if charged, ones personal and professional lives could be irreparably damaged.
As others have stated, it is going to take time for things to get sorted out and we learn how to negotiate the new landscape. The time involved will no doubt be a year, maybe a little more. During this time the police/courts will be finding their way as well, learning what sticks and what doesn't. In the meantime some lives will be changed because of this.
While some talk about price drops and safe forms of advertising, it's all a moot point. Only those who feel they have nothing to loose will venture out into the unknown. Business will no doubt suffer. Others, like myself will bide their time, watching where this new law goes and how far the police/courts can take it. While I don't believe anyone will get the maximum punishment of 5 years in prison. Some will get away with time served and possibly a fine to go along with the police record and become part of a data base.
A conviction, overturned on appeal will be needed. Along with a challenge on infringement of charter rights, in how the police collected their evidence.
We are living in troubled times. From a consumers point of view and I'm fairly certain, business providers as well.
Is it possible that if these events start to occur that our beloved MP's and Senators, after being warned of such a possibility during their hearings, could be charged under the conspiracy to commit section of the Criminal Code. Just because the client is breaking one law doesn't negate his rights to protection under other sections of the criminal code. For example, if someone is breaking into your home and you kill them, in the USA you have the right to do so under the self-defense provisions but in Canada you do not have that right & will in fact be charged with murder. There are cases on the Canadian books where a person protecting his home and family has been charged with murder for killing an intruder.Bill C36 throws the client (I hate the word john) into possible dangers.
If a pimp is involved and beats the living crap out of the client, the client cannot go to the police.
If a woman holds a client for more money with the threat of going to the police.
A client can easily be a victim of a scrupulous pimp or sex worker especially when we cannot report the crime without being criminalized.
I understand your end goal, and I agree. But this isn't about strict legality. This is about morality.
This has nothing to do with morality as such. With the proliferation of different religions in this country, Canada no longer has a common morality that can or should be forced on everyone. The Catholic Church no longer controls the behaviour of its own members. This has everything to do with one group of fanatics trying to impose their will on everyone else. The anti-prostitution group would be up in arms if a pro-prostitution group were to achieve control of the House of Commons and Senate, then pass a bill requiring all Canadians to utilize the services of a prostitute at least 4 times per year, criminalizing anyone unable to prove they had complied with the new law. In a free democratic society the majority respects the rights and freedoms of the minority while the minority (in this case Harper & company) supposedly respects the rights of the majority or even the rights of another minority.
This has nothing to do with morality as such. With the proliferation of different religions in this country, Canada no longer has a common morality that can or should be forced on everyone. The Catholic Church no longer controls the behaviour of its own members. This has everything to do with one group of fanatics trying to impose their will on everyone else. The anti-prostitution group would be up in arms if a pro-prostitution group were to achieve control of the House of Commons and Senate, then pass a bill requiring all Canadians to utilize the services of a prostitute at least 4 times per year, criminalizing anyone unable to prove they had complied with the new law. In a free democratic society the majority respects the rights and freedoms of the minority while the minority (in this case Harper & company) supposedly respects the rights of the majority or even the rights of another minority.
