tomfool

Happy Birthday.

Here's the link to a story linked in the MacLean's article

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-raps-justice-officials-for-treatment-of-whistle-blower/article7394559/

Makes you wonder

 

RG

I saw all of that. It really has very little to do with the question at hand. As Peter McKay said in the McLean's article it was certainly very carefully examined by a whole department of lawyers.

Is it constitutional? Who knows? Many smart lawyers will disagree on that point. It will be decided , probably by the supreme court a few years from now. Until that , starting later this year it will be the land.

The Cloth has too many rips and tears in it.

It's impossible to make a Suit out of it.

Very true. Those who think there will be major changes to this bill don't know much about how our system works or how the current government conducts itself.

I posted this In The News forum but perhaps, and maybe I'm being optimistic, but perhaps PM's proposed bill won't survive as is, it doesn't look like it has been legally scrutinized yet...if I'm reading the story right

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=182440

 

RG

Pretty hard to believe that it has not been scrutinized. It was , after all drafted by the Justice department which is full of lawyers and Peter MacKay is a lawyer himself.

Even if it is not constitutional it will likely be in force for several years before that ruling is made.

It has been , as far as I understand, legal in Canada to see a lady in ones hotel room. This is explicitly no so with the new law. Many stuck mostly to this activity in in the past.

It is going to be not worth the risk for many travelling businessmen to take the risk , no matter how much care is taken with carefully worded ads etc.

Each potential client will have their own tolerance of risk. The threat of a criminal record and jail time is very serious. Too high for many.

thats how i see it.. it does say that no one under the age of 18 should reasonably be expected to be there, too? like this site, it has an age check, same as my website, so no one under 18 should reasonably be expected to be there.

I sure hope that means im ok anyway.. geez

Unfortunately, I think that clause needs to be put in context with the rest of the bill. It seems this is part of their approach to not prosecute providers but everyone else involved.

You will not be prosecuted but anyone that takes money for, or otherwise benefits from your ad will be prosecuted. Also the government has the right to take your add down.

No communication in any manner. No advertising. No payment for services period.

When this bill passes Canada will go from one of the more lenient countries to one of the most strict , possibly the most strict Western democracy.

The issue in both is that when the "activity" is criminal, one can't evade it by doing related transactions overseas.

 

To run a website from a Canadian soil (i.e local IP address), the advertiser could be prosecuted in Canada. Using an overseas server/host etc. doesn't negate that the offence was commenced in a Canadian soil.[/quote

 

Hard to prove and with the use of proxies through many routes would be hard pressed to follow for most LE agencies due to limited budgets and manpower.

 

Maybe hard to prove but any such overseas advertising would be very small compared to what we see today, if at all.

 

Additional Comments:

But this is precisely where you need to be completely up to speed with the details of not just the proposed legislation, but all relevant existing legislation too. That sentence, taken out of context, is essentially meaningless. It may mean exactly what it says, or there may be enough exceptions elsewhere that it's completely neutralized. I don't know which, because I've read neither the bill nor the acts it updates. I strongly suspect that most people commenting on the bill, both amateurs like us and professional journalists, are in the same situation - whether or not they actually admit it.

 

In the meantime, the folks who *really* understand this stuff are probably saying nothing right now, because they know it'll take them a few days to digest it all. I'd regard any commentary at this point as largely uninformed - and before you ask... yes, that includes mine :) (Although that doesn't stop me having a go at things that I consider obviously wrong.)

 

I expect that the professional journalists have lawyers on staff to help with the interpretation.

I guess the catch on the advertising, even by independents , is that it may be legal for them to advertise but not legal for anyone to accept payment for such advertisement. A catch 22 of sorts.

Incorrect. It applies to everyone!

 

"Criminalize the advertising of sexual services in print or online, with offenders facing a maximum prison term of five years. "

 

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/prostitution-bill-would-make-it-illegal-to-buy-sell-sex-in-public

My reading , for what it is worth, says that Savannahs is correct. An independent is free to advertise. Agencies it seems would not.

It would be a crime for anyone to communicate in any way with the independent about the advertisement but the advertisement it seems will be legal.

You are reading it wrong. No communication in public. No different than now. :)

No different than now for a provider. For a customer will be illegal to communicate anywhere.

from the draft bill

"286.1 Everyone who , in any place , obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for purpose of obtaining for consideration the sexual services of a person ..."

Hopefully you are right. I am not a lawyer so no sense in me trying to read the bill. I was going by what the National Post published.

"The new law makes it an offence for the first time in Canada to purchase sexual services, or to communicate in any place for that purpose. It makes it an offence to receive a material benefit from sexual services and it prohibits the advertising of sexual services in newspapers or online."

I guess we will need to hear more in the next few days but it seems to me to boil down to the fact that it will be illegal to pay for sex period. A big step backward in my opinion.

No advertising? No communicating anywhere? Purchasing illegal without exception?

Am I reading this wrong?

I expect there will be changes before it becomes law but will be surprised if they are more than superficial.

Guarantee is the wrong word. It is an offer subject to circumstances including but not limited to the hobbyists ability to do so on that particular occasion. It is being offered as a possibility not a guarantee.

I cannot imagine BBB becoming popular on IOS or Android with all the the options already available. Unfortunately this once great Canadian company has reached the end of the line as a smartphone company. They were way too late jumping on the touch phone bandwagon.

The only real value left seems to be their patents.

Are you planning on doing something illegal?

The concept of girls being able to conduct their business without being bothered by anyone is the right one. If a few of them want to get together and share a place that would be great. As long as it were girls and no pimps involved.

Unfortunately it is not legal in Canada at this time.

I always go to rock bottom pub. The food is OK. The beer is excellent.

A personal trainer can be helpful , especially to get you started. My experience is that they vary greatly so do some research before committing to a particular one. It is a good idea to ask for a free session so you can get an idea of how well it will work.

Part of it is how compatible your personalities are ( sort of like a sp / client relationship I guess ). You will be spending several hours a week with your trainer so compatibility matters.

Also , of course , check out the trainers qualifications , such as any degrees or certificates.