Puritan Harper CONS to "fast track" prostitution bill

[fuji]

In most cases, there will be no proof of the crime, except the woman's testimony. So she can easily say he only paid for company, whether that's true or not. Or just say she's seen so many clients recently she doesnt remember that guy too well.

But this is still all hypothetical. It's very unlikely it would get to court like that simply for a single escort and one client.

It won't be a single escort and a single client. It will be a single escort and every client from her appointment book that the police can locate.

You are saying she could easily lie, and it would be tricky to catch her, but why would she? She isn't facing any charges, the ONLY way she gets into legal hot water is by lying under oath. OK, so the police MIGHT not be able to prove perjury, but would you take that bet?

If you were that escort would you REALLY lie under oath? You have nothing to gain and everything to lose by lying. You can admit the truth without charge, but if it is proved you lied under oath then you go to prison.

I cannot imagine any lawyer ever advising an escort to perjure herself, all risk for no reward for her, so 9 out of 10 times she will sing.

 

[wilbur]

Actually she IS breaking the law. She only has an immunity from prosecution under provisions 286.1-5, but her actions are still a crime. She still has an obligation to cooperate when police have a warrant and she CAN be arrested for obstruction of justice or any other reasons the police care to use.

You can be subpoened, but your memory could be faulty or uncertain once you're on the stand. Anyway, threatening sex-workers to hand over evidence through a warrant and forcing them to testify against their will under penalty of prison time is a sure way to get their trust and confidence....Not! Another reason why the sex industry might be driven underground.

Actually, it's Section 286.5(2): “No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services.”

So it's against the law for the sex-worker also, but the sex-worker is not going to be prosecuted. Young said that only a Province can grant immunity from prosecution; The Criminal Code can not offer immunity. So another reason why MacKay's Bill is unconstitutional because it infringes upon a Province's constitutional responsibilities.

But one question I have: if a person cannot be prosecuted, does that imply also that a person cannot be detained, arrested and booked anyway? In other words, nothing explicitly says that the police cannot detain or arrest such a person (who has committed a crime but cannot be taken to court), take them to the station, take mug shots, finger prints, strip search and locked up until the prosecutor decides to invoke section 286.5? It would be convenient in order to get the 'witness' to cooperate in exchange to get the prosecutor to let them out of detention. IN the meantime, wouldn't the police keep track of this person's arrest sheet?

They could even use the powers of arrest in order to 'save' prostitutes' from themselves, and carry out their noble mission? What about if there's a bust, and the sex-worker decides to just leave: can the police detain her pending investigation since, she did commit a crime, although she will not be prosecuted, e.i. charged and go to court?

 

[lenny2]

It won't be a single escort and a single client. It will be a single escort and every client from her appointment book that the police can locate.

You are saying she could easily lie, and it would be tricky to catch her, but why would she? She isn't facing any charges, the ONLY way she gets into legal hot water is by lying under oath. OK, so the police MIGHT not be able to prove perjury, but would you take that bet?

If you were that escort would you REALLY lie under oath? You have nothing to gain and everything to lose by lying. You can admit the truth without charge, but if it is proved you lied under oath then you go to prison.

I cannot imagine any lawyer ever advising an escort to perjure herself, all risk for no reward for her, so 9 out of 10 times she will sing.

Will police be able & willing to locate an appointment book that is on a secured encrypted PC? Will one that has had erased the info at the start of every appointment be of any use to them re past sessions? Will sessions that were booked as "social" or non sexual or pay for company (with email evidence supporting that) be of any use to them, even if they were later upgraded to something else while in progress?

As for SP's testifying in court or against a client, i'm sure many SP's would rather fail to make it in time for the case due to traffic or over sleeping, etc. Also they would not want their real name in the news or to have friends, relatives, neighbors etc finding out what they do for a career. Furthermore, they would have to weigh the risks re lying or otherwise not testifying or remembering anything versus the loss of their livlihood once word of their treachery reached the internet. Client confidentiality, including not only clients personal info but also what transpires in a session could be considered the most sacred trust in the industry. If professionals like doctors and lawyers can refuse to divulge info re patients or customers, citing client confidentiality, why can't professional SP's?

What is the chance of being caught lieing? One in a 100? The punishment? A few days in jail? Could be better than losing one's career.

 

[fmahovalich]

An appointment book???

SHEESH !!!

Most of These girls can't get the NEXT appointment time locked down....never mind organizing an appointment book.

lol...... I'm quite doubtful appointment books exist.

 

[Siocnarf]

...and how many ladies would find it easier to tell the whole truth than to be cunning and evasive without looking like a liar?

I think workers have a good incentive not to incriminate their clients. Once an SP gets a client convicted, I imagine her career will be pretty much over.

I'm not sure if you have to be 'far' from children. Perhaps out of site from children (say you live in an adult-only building, but a child visits grandma in a separate unit, without any chance whatsoever of coming into contact)?

It's only about communicating in public next to a school or playground. It does not apply to communication in a private location.

 

[lenny2]

In the short term you will be able to set up a reasonable situation with your existing clients, who you already trust, and who trust you.

It is acquiring new customers and establishing mutual trust with them where things are going to change. New SP's entering the business next year, trying to develop their own client base, and existing SP's trying to add new customers, are where the risks arise, and where the new law will make everyone less safe.

I expect new customers will be obtained for SP's through sites like TERB. Such clients can search the forum databases & find out what SP's have been trustworthy prior to Bill C-36 becoming law.

 

[TeasePlease]

An appointment book???

SHEESH !!!

Most of These girls can't get the NEXT appointment time locked down....never mind organizing an appointment book.

lol...... I'm quite doubtful appointment books exist.

They exist. They're called phones now.

And it really isn't that far fetched to imagine a scenario where phones, tablets, computers credit card records (for those who accept credit) may be subpoenaed or seized by warrant as evidence of a suspected crime. The question then becomes whether the owner of those records would testify to the context of the information.

I think workers have a good incentive not to incriminate their clients. Once an SP gets a client convicted, I imagine her career will be pretty much over.

That's what I thought. Then someone pointed out to me that leverage isn't exclusive to sex activities. Do you think every SP lives a squeaky clean life? The example put to me was what if an SP is caught on another unrelated charge? Would you count on her to take one for the team? More to the point, how many sexworkers do you know actually think of this as a "career"?

 

[whobee]

I think workers have a good incentive not to incriminate their clients. Once an SP gets a client convicted, I imagine her career will be pretty much over.
.

Bedford just threatened to name names a week or so ago.

Not being incriminated themselves is likely plenty of incentive. These aren't super spies with encryption algorithms and cyanide pills. They have lives and concerns larger than the industry.

 

[lomotil]

They exist. They're called phones now.

And it really isn't that far fetched to imagine a scenario where phones, tablets, computers credit card records (for those who accept credit) may be subpoenaed or seized by warrant as evidence of a suspected crime. The question then becomes whether the owner of those records would testify to the context of the information.



That's what I thought. Then someone pointed out to me that leverage isn't exclusive to sex activities. Do you think every SP lives a squeaky clean life? The example put to me was what if an SP is caught on another unrelated charge? Would you count on her to take one for the team? More to the point, how many sexworkers do you know actually think of this as a "career"?

I agree with the above. Many in the trade are well organized and are simply not going cooperate with LE. However, there exists other who definitely will, those with mental health issues, substances abuse problems, financial issues, malice for the competition can easily be compromised by LE into cooperating. Much plea bargaining is on the horizon as is subtle and not so subtle harassment of sex workers to get them to leave the trade. The government has even offered financial enducements for job re-training. All sex workers are obviously not all in solidarity and LE And the federal government can easily exploit this fact. Furthermore review boards provide invaluable information unintentionally for LE to perform surgical strikes. LE vice squads have been dormant for a while now pending the new law, but in 2015 the sex trade will be forced to enter a whole new threshold with a new law and a federal election looming.

 

[fmahovalich]

I agree with the above. Many in the trade are well organized and are simply not going cooperate with LE. However, there exists other who definitely will, those with mental health issues, substances abuse problems, financial issues, malice for the competition can easily be compromised by LE into cooperating. Much plea bargaining is on the horizon as is subtle and not so subtle harassment of sex workers to get them to leave the trade. The government has even offered financial enducements for job re-training. All sex workers are obviously not all in solidarity and LE And the federal government can easily exploit this fact. Furthermore review boards provide invaluable information unintentionally for LE to perform surgical strikes. LE vice squads have been dormant for a while now pending the new law, but in 2015 the sex trade will be forced to enter a whole new threshold with a new law and a federal election looming.

If I'm not mistaken...I think the police need a warrant to go Into a phone. I truly am not worried about this..or a future law on prostitution. I highly doubt Police would put that much effort into a simple misdemeanor offence of seeing a hooker. Unless YOU were part of child slavery, or trafficking in underage girls, the average schmuck has nothing to worry about.

ask yourself...Do you REALLY worry now? Like really? I don't!

 

[Toronto`s Finest]

If I'm not mistaken...I think the police need a warrant to go Into a phone. I truly am not worried about this..or a future law on prostitution. I highly doubt Police would put that much effort into a simple misdemeanor offence of seeing a hooker. Unless YOU were part of child slavery, or trafficking in underage girls, the average schmuck has nothing to worry about.

ask yourself...Do you REALLY worry now? Like really? I don't!

BINGO!!! Look at the situation in The U.S. were it is illegal for both Girl & client. In all major cities Incalls & OutCalls are thriving ..... and are advertising on BACKPAGE. Cops & communities worry more about other things than consenting adults involved in this Industry.... PERIOD!!

 

[shakenbake]

If I'm not mistaken...I think the police need a warrant to go Into a phone. I truly am not worried about this..or a future law on prostitution. I highly doubt Police would put that much effort into a simple misdemeanor offence of seeing a hooker. Unless YOU were part of child slavery, or trafficking in underage girls, the average schmuck has nothing to worry about.

ask yourself...Do you REALLY worry now? Like really? I don't!

Not so.

The Courts have long recognized that the protections of s. 8 are "circumscribed by the existence of the potential for serious and immediate harm." Exigent circumstances "inform the reasonableness of the search...and may justify the absence of prior judicial authorization".[SUP][1][/SUP]
This rule has been codified in s. 487.11 of the Criminal Code:

Where warrant not necessary
487.11 A peace officer, or a public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, may, in the course of his or her duties, exercise any of the powers described in subsection 487(1) or 492.1(1) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain a warrant.
1997, c. 18, s. 46.

– CCC​

In the context of a drug offence s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provides that:

(7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) [the subsections setting out the powers of a peace officer having a search warrant] without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one.
​

Generally, "exigent circumstances" exists where "there is an imminent danger of the loss, removal, destruction or disappearance of the evidence if the search or seizure is delayed."[SUP][2][/SUP]

 

[TeasePlease]

If I'm not mistaken...I think the police need a warrant to go Into a phone. I truly am not worried about this..or a future law on prostitution. I highly doubt Police would put that much effort into a simple misdemeanor offence of seeing a hooker. Unless YOU were part of child slavery, or trafficking in underage girls, the average schmuck has nothing to worry about.

ask yourself...Do you REALLY worry now? Like really? I don't!

No, they won't go to the trouble for one guy (unless you're the mayor). But they would as part of a deliberate enforcement campaign.

I don't worry now because I'm not at direct risk of criminal prosecution under current laws. I will be under C-36.

 

[joe_labatt]

3. Subpoena you as a hostile witness in the trial and force you to testify under oath as to whether your customer paid you for sex

I am assuming that if an SP is subpoenaed to testify, they will need to give their real name, and not, for example, Miss Jessica Lee. Then, the SP's real name goes into the court records for anyone to look up and could be published by the press. I doubt there are many SPs around who would want that to happen.

 

[TeasePlease]

I am assuming that if an SP is subpoenaed to testify, they will need to give their real name, and not, for example, Miss Jessica Lee. Then, the SP's real name goes into the court records for anyone to look up and could be published by the press. I doubt there are many SPs around who would want that to happen.

Also a good point. Which is another reason why an SP might choose to cooperate with LE so they leave her out of the formal process but get a leg up on the investigation.

Speculation, but plausible.

 

[Serpent]

I don't worry now because I'm not at direct risk of criminal prosecution under current laws. I will be under C-36.

This. Is. A. Simple. Fact. That. All. These. Denialists. Fail. To. Comprehend.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Fuck him indeed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone more anti Harper than I am.

But I loath him based on a huge laundry list that includes but is not limited to: fucking over the poor, fucking over veterans, fucking over those who still serve in the military, fucking over Natives, fucking over immigrants, fucking over the environment, pandering to a Canadian tea-party lite crowd, slashing the CBC and the civil service to such an extent as to render them unable to fulfill their mandate, spending a BILLION motherfucking dollars to host a G8 summit in Toronto, spending so much on useless F35s as to make the previous item on my list look like chump change, muzzling scientists and civil servants so that they cannot speak publicly without a motherfucking ABSURD amount of vetting and filtering by PR flacks and weasels, ending 40 years of consistent and plottable census data by changing the nature of the long form census, shutting Kevin Page out because he actually tried to do his job instead of play the Tory lapdog, running a shitshow of a temporary foreign worker programme that cost Canadian jobs, stacking the senate with more partisan hacks than even Trudeau dreamed of, oh! and being so sleazy and corrupt that it makes the libs look downright pristine, (what with the patterns of electoral fraud and Harpo trying to buy his way out of a scandal with Mike fucking Duffy), and tarnishing our international reputation to such an extent that Canadian youth travelling abroad would be better served to have a USA patch sewn on their backpacks rather than the other way around.

You know what isn't on my list? Bill C36. Do I hate it? Fuck yeah. A lot. It will curtail my hobbying, maybe even end it, and that displeases me to no end. But there is so much more going on, so many issues that are bigger, more important, and more pressing, that anyone who makes their voting decision on that alone can't see past the tip of their cock.

All righty then, but I don't agree with all of your grievances, however, Bill C-36 could be the straw that breaks the camel's back lol. (On the basis of the economy, I think Harper is doing a good job. Without a good economy, none of us can afford to hobby).

 

[MPAsquared]

This. Is. A. Simple. Fact. That. All. These. Denialists. Fail. To. Comprehend.

I don't see much denial. But, it's still much too soon to know what c36 will look like in its final draft.

 

[Aardvark154]

An appointment book???

SHEESH !!!

Most of These girls can't get the NEXT appointment time locked down....never mind organizing an appointment book.

lol...... I'm quite doubtful appointment books exist.

Remember that case in Maine a year or so ago (there was a thread about it) she had an extensive and detailed appointment book, which of course was seized and used as evidence.

 

[Siocnarf]

Generally, "exigent circumstances" exists where "there is an imminent danger of the loss, removal, destruction or disappearance of the evidence if the search or seizure is delayed.

There is no imminent danger of the evidence being destroyed unless they tell an agency or SP in advance that they're going to bust them. If they want to get to those records they will have to get a warrant before they proceed.