new prostitution bill

[stinkfist66 264]

quick question.

what about bitcoin?

Aren't there ways to make it hard, or nearly impossible to trace? If bitcoin were implemented couldn't that remove the possibility of conviction because it can't be proven that money changed hands?

[loneskater 25635]

I was just listening to a French Radio Canada interviews on FM and they asked a cop about the part of the bill about criminalizing clients and he said it would be very difficult to apply, if it becomes law. Basically they can't have a police officer with each SP, 24 hrs a day, to hear and see everything they do!

[Guest Ou**or**n]

I was just listening to a French Radio Canada interviews on FM and they asked a cop about the part of the bill about criminalizing clients and he said it would be very difficult to apply, if it becomes law. Basically they can't have a police officer with each SP, 24 hrs a day, to hear and see everything they do!

 

What concerns me is that parts of the law are covering even communicating for the purpose of purchasing sex. This time its not about communicating in a public place but any type of communication. Thus an email or text setting up an appointment could get you charged. This is very different from the true difficulty of catching someone in the act. Given the Snowden revelations about the extend of electronic surveillance this causes me real concern. Same with PM's here on CERB when the cops come knocking and hand out a warrant for CERB's content and logs.

 

Now maybe I'm not properly understanding this part of the law. Maybe the cops will have no interest in this type of pursuit. Maybe this part of the bill will get changed, clarified or dropped throughout the coming months.

 

All I can say is that if that part goes into law I'm likely to continue with just a couple of regulars if they setup communication mechanisms that are fully encrypted (like Wickr). I'm also giving serious consideration to quitting completely for at least a year or two to give time to see how it all shakes out.

 

For me and many other professionals, a criminal record would completely end my career. It is a case that even though the risk is relatively low, the consequences are so high that it simply would be irresponsible to my life and those that depend on me to continue.

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

There is another way that can taken that is secure between two parties which is BBM which is totally secure but would only be practical with those Providers we share our PINS with.

[kyralynn 110]

im not sure how to feel about this

[loneskater 25635]

What concerns me is that parts of the law are covering even communicating for the purpose of purchasing sex. This time its not about communicating in a public place but any type of communication. Thus an email or text setting up an appointment could get you charged. This is very different from the true difficulty of catching someone in the act. Given the Snowden revelations about the extend of electronic surveillance this causes me real concern. Same with PM's here on CERB when the cops come knocking and hand out a warrant for CERB's content and logs...

 

First the Snowden revelations is irrelevant. In this country you need a judge to sign a warrant to allow electronic/phone surveillance. Without that anything the cops would have is inadmissible in court. The government is looking at amending that but for cases of national security. I doubt getting laid falls under that category.

 

2nd For those that have been around long enough, there was a time we were seeing ladies before internet and smartphone existed. Not having boards like this we weren't getting information on what exactly is the law and did not understand the actual ones properly. Back then we you either met a lady on the street or you looked at papers and yellow pages. Those ads sure did not describe services as it would have cost too much. So basically when you called, the lady would give you a description of herself and instructions for meeting her. Back then I never discussed any services over the phone.

 

Therefore, should the communication part of the bill becomes law, without any changes, all we have to do is go back to the old practice. You do not discuss sexual services on the phone, text or PM. You see the lady for her time and nothing else. So you will not know what services the lady offers in advance but where is your sense of adventure. That's the way it was done in the past and we survived!

[scribbles 6031]

I find it amusing that there is such frequent mention of "public outcry," and how this new bill is against the will of the Canadian people. This, based on a few questionable polls. The reality is that the average Canadian voter doesn't truly understand, or feel very motivated to learn, how this industry works or what kind of people are in it. *That* is why they so readily accept whatever abolitionist pap is being passed around.

In order for there to be public outcry, there needs to be widespread awareness. As important as Bedford, there *should* have been an awareness and media campaign. That may sound ludicrous, but without the backing of public awareness of the issues and particulars in question, court action gets us precisely where we are today. Unfortunately, very few are willing to speak up, even anonymously.

[canuckhooker 19202]

There is another way that can taken that is secure between two parties which is BBM which is totally secure but would only be practical with those Providers we share our PINS with.

 

I wouldn't bet on that. I used to do BB support for a Government department and that was the belief. A lot of senior folks used Pin to Pin to avoid leaving a trail that could be subject to Access requests. The messages are not stored on the server, but they are not secure and very easy to intercept with the right technology.

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

There is other tech available which I am looking into which has been over looked

[Guest S****r]

There is other tech available which I am looking into which has been over looked

 

Do tell! Please.

[bobedward2012 120]

Ok, I did not study the bill. However, as a hobyist and as a lawyer, this bill concerns me. However, I have this strong feeling that it won't be a big deal, this will probably only affect street prostitution. Escort should still be ok.

 

I think it's funny to see how the world does not evolve! Man, we can't pay for sex, but it's not legal to sell it. What a fucking joke!

 

Let's be smart about it, this bill will be challenged in supreme court, but you don't want to be the one challenging it. So for now, take the habit of only seeing escort you know and trust, do not discut payment with her, and leave the money on the table. Never ever talk about it!

 

Good luck guys,

Bob

[Royalfun 55448]

I wouldn't bet on that. I used to do BB support for a Government department and that was the belief. A lot of senior folks used Pin to Pin to avoid leaving a trail that could be subject to Access requests. The messages are not stored on the server, but they are not secure and very easy to intercept with the right technology.

 

 

 

I really doubt that the LE and the cities with their tight budgets will get into a very complex and expensive surveillance on the individuals when they communicate between themselves to book an appointment or to inquire about the services. There are so many other threats to the safety of the Nation that they will do then as they do now. They already try to focus on the child pornography issue, but their resources are not enough to cover that task, more crucial and important than the communication between an honest hobbyist and an honest SP.

 

For Harper, and his supporters, what is annoying is what you see in the street. For that matter, the street workers will have a hard time, and their safety will be at risk. And Street workers are not the ones that use computers and emails to promote their business. Look at the presentation of McKay on C36: the purpose of C36 is the safety on the streets... not about the safety of the street workers.

 

 

 

This new bill is so full of non-sense that it will be overturned by the SCC. What we have to do is to help those who will contest C36 in court, like Pivot Legal Society of BC. When I say help, I am saying to support them or group alike with our donation. It's in our own interest and in the interest of the industry. We all know that money will be the tool to win this legal battle; Harper has access to our taxes to fight against us; so we have to be strong together.

 

The other thing we have to do is to make sure that Harper and his party will lose the next election.

 

And really, do you think that Fort McMurray and the tar sand industry could last without the SPs ?

[roamingguy 300291]

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

[tomfool 220]

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.

[roamingguy 300291]

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.

 

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

[Tallguy007 4172]

There is other tech available which I am looking into which has been over looked

 

Thinking of something like redphone ( https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.redphone )? Or their secure texting ( https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.securesms )?[url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.securesms)?][/url]

[fortunateone 156618]

Here is an article with a lot of input from a variety of people

 

http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/story/sex-workers-say-new-prostitution-bill-dangerous-po/30888

[NovaBayer 100]

Why are they trying to push and rush this true? Make a proper solution instead that works for all and not just for the politicians!

[tomfool 220]

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.

[roamingguy 300291]

There's one aspect that most are ignoring.

 

If passed as is, it will give the police the right to set up stings against hobbyists. All they will have to do is get a decoy and create a phoney ad.

 

The person contacts the SP in the ad (boom 1 automatic charge of communicating for the purpose of purchasing sex). Setup up an appointment. Show up to the appointment with money in your pocket (boom 2nd automatic charge of purchasing sexual services).

 

 

They will absolutely do this because the government is all about "removing demand" for SPs, so this will be their go-to tactic. They may even go as far as targeting locations of well known SPs and bring down a few of their visitors to deter their customers and drive down demand.

 

I think what is being missed is the police could have done so under the old legislation. Just for example how many ladies for example advertise incalls, how many agencies advertise, both illegal btw. It wasn't targeted by LE with massive raids because it is both time and resource (money) demanding on police. With the possibility of low return, on their LE investment if that makes sense. I mean would you as a police chief sanction thousands of dollars to go after one SP and clients doing incalls

and get out of it, maybe six months probation? Especially when for less dollars unmarked cruisers could drive by and target street prostitution. Or even cheaper, set up a lot of speed traps and actually ticket drivers and produce revenue for the city

Government agencies, be they federal, provincial or municipal are all constrained by budgets...no new funding has been allocated to law enforcement to go after prostitution. And LE is a government agency or extension of the Government/State

Yes the government had to play a moral high ground to appease it's constituents but really I believe they could have given a rat's a$$ about the issue to begin with. This was their solution to get Bedford and the SCC off their back so to speak. Proof of how much they really care.

Only twenty million for all of Canada to "save" prostitutes...if PM really believed what he preached, that amount, well he should hang his head in shame, that's not going to help anyone. No money or resources allocated to law enforcement. And each police department sets it own priorities with the resources it has

It isn't just what the bill says, it also matters what the government will do

to enforce that new bill...and that is not much of anything

Just my opinion

 

RG

[LeeRichards 177238]

[CMJ 14869]

There's one aspect that most are ignoring.

 

 

 

They will absolutely do this because the government is all about "removing demand" for SPs, so this will be their go-to tactic. They may even go as far as targeting locations of well known SPs and bring down a few of their visitors to deter their customers and drive down demand.

 

 

I wonder if the national campaign they did a few months ago - police dropping in SP's and MP's across Canada - was related to this in anyway...

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

I wonder if the national campaign they did a few months ago - police dropping in SP's and MP's across Canada - was related to this in anyway...

 

I would think so, "hey lets show the bad and ugly side to the public so that when we bring the new laws those images will be in the minds of our Canadians! " Brainwashing!

[Dori 759]

CRAP I forgot about Bill C-13 Protecting Canadians From Online Crime Act. They will have the ability to monitor your net use without a warrant. So no privacy on the net period.

 

Actually they dont have to wait for Bill C-13, they can already monitor online activities and get personal information pertaining to IP addresses without a warrant from ISPs:

 

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/internet-privacy-decision-by-supreme-court-comes-today

 

The Supreme Court decides today whether the warrantless searches and monitoring is legal under the Charter of Rights, and whether police and law enforcement agencies can continue doing it.

[mrrnice2 157005]

Actually they dont have to wait for Bill C-13, they can already monitor online activities and get personal information pertaining to IP addresses without a warrant from ISPs:

 

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/internet-privacy-decision-by-supreme-court-comes-today

 

The Supreme Court decides today whether the warrantless searches and monitoring is legal under the Charter of Rights, and whether police and law enforcement agencies can continue doing it.

 

Yet another Supreme Court decision has gone against the Harper government. I still believe vindictiveness vs the court is largely responsible for this new bill that is the topic of this thread.

 

Today's decision will only make the Conservatives dig in harder on this. They broke no contrary opinions. :(