The same people who think that no cop could possibly decipher a code as clever as 240 roses?
Puritan Harper CONS to "fast track" prostitution bill
- Thread starter d_jedi
- Start date
The same people who think that no cop could possibly decipher a code as clever as 240 roses?
Thatis not what I am talking about. I asked how the police are getting this video or database evidence? Sp's are not handing them over and SP's are not the target for any valid warrent from my understanding.
Why not? They get information from Bell and Rogers. They could certainly get a warrant to seize computers and phones of SPs. It's not enough to convict anyone, but it's a pretty good start. As someone pointed out to me some time ago, its not beyond the realm of possibility that an SP would testify for the crown under certain circumstances.
An SP testify is not new, however what is gone now is the extortion from police. SP's can not be charged so the deal making of testify vrs being charged is gone. SP's have less reason to help the police now then before.
But again, from my understanding a warrent can not be served to hand off a list of clients. Bell and Rogers are given IP address to link to accounts. That is different then just handing an SP a warrent for her whole client list.
Why are they coming to me with a warrent? First - I am not an SP, but if you are taking about police showing up at an escorts house with a warrent for her client list, why would she need to co-operate? She only has to say she doesn't keep records. She is not breaking the law now, what will they have to hold over her head to force her to comply?
The Canadian industry will NOT be destroyed by this bill while it stands. Sorry, but no one can stop the industry. It thrives in the US where both the buyer and the seller can be charge, it will thrive here. You are ignorant to think otherwise. Meet me here in a year and we will see who is right.
As I'm reading through this thread and others I'm beginning to notice a trend, and its the tension within all of us,
as this bill slowly becomes law. Most who have commented have valid points for the most part.
Security in Job or career is one big one for the ones, deemed a criminal, which someone expressed on another thread.
As far as the providers on this board most are genuine in protecting their customer's integrity or at least the ones I have met.
Its become very apparent to me, that were beginning to argue more and more amongst each other. Why is this happening??
Because there's an inequality, in the way the bill has been written.
Its causing frustration and its going to get worse between provider and client as it becomes law,
If both parties were accountable for this so called crime, there would be no arguments,
in fact we would all be in unison in crushing this bill.
I'm going to through something out there..
Do you believe the government had an ulterior motive in creating the bill in this way?
and purposely manipulating its context in such a manner as to create this sort of fallout between client and provider.
To me, this was the only way, they could have an effect on every level of this industry, including our own.
When you create an inequality, in any circle whether it be race, colour, religion or in this case gender, you produce "detachment", of common grounds.
What I'm getting to, either we stick together on this, or this thing of ours will fall apart. Jmt
as this bill slowly becomes law. Most who have commented have valid points for the most part.
Security in Job or career is one big one for the ones, deemed a criminal, which someone expressed on another thread.
As far as the providers on this board most are genuine in protecting their customer's integrity or at least the ones I have met.
Its become very apparent to me, that were beginning to argue more and more amongst each other. Why is this happening??
Because there's an inequality, in the way the bill has been written.
Its causing frustration and its going to get worse between provider and client as it becomes law,
If both parties were accountable for this so called crime, there would be no arguments,
in fact we would all be in unison in crushing this bill.
I'm going to through something out there..
Do you believe the government had an ulterior motive in creating the bill in this way?
and purposely manipulating its context in such a manner as to create this sort of fallout between client and provider.
To me, this was the only way, they could have an effect on every level of this industry, including our own.
When you create an inequality, in any circle whether it be race, colour, religion or in this case gender, you produce "detachment", of common grounds.
What I'm getting to, either we stick together on this, or this thing of ours will fall apart. Jmt
Tensions are escalating on all forums across the country, but I don't think the government is smart enough to have 'divide and conquer' as their motive for the bill.
You don't get it. A crime is still being committed and the video, phone records, appointment book, etc, are evidence. Just because the SP's can't be prosecuted doesn't mean the police can't get a search warrant to seize evidence of a crime.
They will seize all that material and use it to prosecute customers. They will probably also easily get confessions from SP: "Did you engage in prostitution?" "Sure did pig, but you can't arrest me for that, I know my rights!". Statements like that can be used to convict the client, and will easily slip out of the mouths of many SP's, many of whom won't fully understand the law.
The law is not set up to enable prostitution, police will be expected to conduct raids, arrest customers, and divert SP's to rehabilitation programs.
Last edited:
This is not correct. The law doesn't say sex sellers are free from contact from police nor does it preclude police from soliciting their cooperation. As I've said in the past, police don't need to charge sex workers. They can easily coerce them into cooperation. It was just a week ago when an mpa told me a cop saw her leaving the spa and pulled her over. He wrote her a ticket for driving without insurance but mentioned he would drop the ticket if she gave up the name of her pimp. She didn't have a pimp and as expected was saddled with a ticket. She wouldn't have been pulled over if the cop didn't know she was probably working at the spa. So the police officer essentially was just abusing his power by appearing to enforce the highway traffic act but is really trying to engage in a prostitution related investigation. These kinds of activities are completely fair game under bill C-36. Other threats such as reporting them to family services or charging them with possible drug offenses are very possible to gain cooperation. It is foolish to think sex workers are actually going to be treated like victims just because McKay said so.
To your other point, there is absolutely nothing that stops an officer from gaining a warrant to search an SPs house or computer for evidence. If prostitution is a crime, they have every right to investigate that crime. It isn't likely to occur but they can obtain a warrant to search your computer or email if they can establish that it contains evidence of a crime (i.e. client lists and correspondence). The law only says that sellers of sex won't be prosecuted for the selling of their on services, it does't state they have the right not to cooperate with law enforcement during the course of their investigation. If they are subpoenaed, they are legally obligated to answer questions to the best of their ability.
If you doubt this, please read this research article in Sweden: http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=2193
God - yet another "sky is falling" thread. Yes, LE will have huge new budgets and carte blanche to go after any information they want from whomever they want, damn the rights of everyone, all to give me a $500 fine. No judge will ever call the cons on their very poor law, we will turn the courts over to anti-prostitution cases, forget all the other crime, there's prostitution to eradicate!
No wonder I spend so little time here now. It's simply not worth reading this stuff.
No wonder I spend so little time here now. It's simply not worth reading this stuff.
Now here's the sort of sensible reply I'm not going to bother writing anymore. Thanks for this.
Well, Conservatives epitomize small mindedness. They hide information about what they are doing, they muzzle scientists, they are habitual liars, and of course they turned against their own policy to "guide" the country through economic turmoil, and are poised to create law that will prevent future governments from using the same policies they had to co-opt. This prostitution law is a good reason to vote against them, but there are better, of course. And most Canadians agree that it was a mistake to give them this chance to try their hand at government. They will never have another majority, and won't win the next election. They will self destruct along their obvious fault lines before they get the chance to come back.
Staggerspool, before the Reformers introduced this draconian law everyone was claiming "dont worry, government is not going to do much, blah blah blah, the sky is not falling blah blah blah" well this law give authorities cart blanch if they choose to go heavy handed towards us , agency owners, strip club owners and massage parlor owners. We have no idea of the fallout but rest assured as the sky is blue, some here will pay a heavy price for having consensual paid sex thanks to Peter Mackay and the Reform Party of Canada.
I totally agree with you on this.
Justin 2015!
I totally agree with you on this.
Justin 2015!
The reality is that it will take years, maybe a decade, to get a case in front of the Supreme Court to overturn this new law.
The Charter came into force in 1982, and it took until 2013 to overturn the old law. The Bedford case itself was filed in 2007 and took six years to get to a decision. Even if a case is immediately filed it will be 2020 before a new challenge wind its through the courts, and it may take YEARS to find a John willing to make himself a household name for buying sex.
During this decade the police WILL enforce the law. Some jurisdictions will prosecute aggressively, others will run periodic sweeps for the media, while some may only investigate cases on a complaint basis.
But once the police decide to investigate any video, phone records, appointment books, emails, private messages, etc., will be seized and used as evidence, and while an SP cannot be prosecuted she can certainly be compelled to testify under oath and face perjury charges if she lies on the stand.
Your SP may not WANT you to go to jail, but if subpoenad to testify against you and forced to choose between sending you up the river or landing herself in jail for contempt or perjury, precious few of them will take a bullet to save your ass from jail.
Not yet. When the police seize your appointment book and arrest everyone who had ever been your client, and then the crown forces you to appear in court under oath and testify, are you going to lie on the stand and risk being jailed for perjury in order to keep your clients out of the slammer?there is no fallout between myself and my clients ..... is there?
I bet there will be a falling out with your clients on that day.
Any client of yours who is smart will do anything possible to avoid you knowing who they are or how to contact them for exactly this reason.
They will want to see you under conditions where you know as little about them as possible, where you don't have the opportunity to photograph or videotape their faces, where you have no contract information or references that could lead back to them.
Police don't need to arrest clients at all to drive an incall out of business. They just have to leave a police cruiser in front of your building and clients will turn around pretty quick.
You are right, it is very difficult to get evidence on a client. This means that workers, especially with a fixed location, are a much easier target for police attention. They have your contact, they know where you work. They can't arrest you, but in places where LE enforce the law, it's the workers who are going to get harassed by the police, not the clients.
Once again, I don't expect the law to be more enforced than before. However, it is wrong I think to say the clients are the ones that can be more affected by the new law.
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.
Fuji is another one, you should put on your ignore list. His bullshit posts aren't worth reading.
I'm starting to think Fuji and Capital Pussy whoops I mean Capital Hunter are the same person
Last edited:
Slow down a bit and try to understand this, it is not personal, I am not commenting on you personally, just trying to help you understand your situation under the new law.
Being paid for sex won't be illegal. But paying for sex will be. So when someone pays you for sex a crime is being committed, not by you, but by them. And you will be a material witness to that crime.
If the police/crown have probable cause to suspect that crime has been committed they will:
1. Arrest your customer and charge him with purchasing a sexual service
2. Get a search warrant to seize your records , emails, videos, appointment book, anything else that they can find, because it will be evidence of his crime
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
If you tell the truth under oath you are fine, you have committed no crime. You will be free to go. Your sworn testimony will put him in prison, but you will be fine.
If you lie under oath then while you are still not guilty of prostitution you ARE guilty of lying under oath, a crime of perjury. You will go to jail for a long while on that one. Any lawyer you hire will urge you to be truthful about being paid for sex so that you do not go to jail.
I am saying "you" here, but this has nothing to do with you personally. This will happen any time police make a prostitution bust.
