Clients, what will you do if the Nordic model becomes law

[WriteOn 3250]

Should I clarify? LE already thinks that clients are pervs, at least the ones who see the street workers. So a bill telling them that they are supposed to see them as perverts isn't going to change the fact that they already do think that. :)

 

Here is what I was responding to.

 

but LE doesn't see the clients and sps as any different. A new bill isn't going to have them seeing you as any more or less the perv they currently view clients.

 

My point was with the new law john's are the target, not the sex worker. John's will be prosecuted, they will have the record. So the new bill will affect how we are treated.

 

As far as how LE "perceives" me, I don't give a fuck.

[oldblueeyez 15475]

The way I see it, this is a lifestyle choice. I don't need or want anymore relationships in my life, but I still like to have fun once in a while. Sure, I could go to a bar and try to "hook up", but I've never been a pickup artist, what I'd be able to pick up wouldn't impress me much, and to be honest I'm just too lazy to work for it. lol It seems like everybody else in this country has a right to live their own lifestyle except for horny men. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

 

If I click with a local provider it'd be nice to have a regular go-to girl, but on the other hand I've been wanting to semi-retire someplace warm, so maybe I'll simply do my hobbying elsewhere. Costa Rica fours time a year, I could handle that! :D

[LeeRichards 177238]

If it becomes law I will then wear my Nordic lid :) Sexy as the dickens and inconspicuous I imagine ...........

 

[piano8950 32577]

If the Nordic Model becomes a law, I will be waiting for all those who say it won't change a thing because of budget restrictions and stuff, to test out how things are.

 

The way I see it, this just gives the police more powers that it doesn't need. Piss one of them off, they go snooping around to see if there is anything that they can use on you. An SP getting caught for violating the bizarre proposed rules (or some other trumped out charge), they pressure her into sharing correspondences for something favourable.

 

There are many possibilities that are running through my mind, and I may be more scared then I need to be, but seeing how I have according to many medical journals, more life ahead of me then behind, I'd rather not continue the rest of my life with the threat like this over my head.

[drlove 37202]

An SP getting caught for violating the bizarre proposed rules (or some other trumped out charge), they pressure her into sharing correspondences for something favourable.

 

I was thinking something similar earlier today. While it's all well and good to stick to established SPs as some have suggested, if one of those SPs were to be investigated and LE gets access to a client list or correspondence pertaining to engaging in the hobby, you could still get nailed, unfortunately.

[piano8950 32577]

I was thinking something similar earlier today. While it's all well and good to stick to established SPs as some have suggested, if one of those SPs were to be investigated and LE gets access to a client list or correspondence pertaining to engaging in the hobby, you could still get nailed, unfortunately.

 

Something similar did happen to US. A DC Madam was being investigated for a bunch of charges, and some of her clients were exposed, even though it seems that no charges were brought to them.

 

They went after her for racketeering, and using the mail for illegal purposes, not prostitution.

 

This is exactly what scares the living shit out of me.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

I was thinking something similar earlier today. While it's all well and good to stick to established SPs as some have suggested, if one of those SPs were to be investigated and LE gets access to a client list or correspondence pertaining to engaging in the hobby, you could still get nailed, unfortunately.

 

True, and a concern I share. If I do continue with one or two of my regulars I'll have a talk with them before the law goes into effect. I'll explain to them that I'll be closing my account here in CERB (if it even will exist after the law goes into effect). I'll also explain my phone number will be changing as I'll be getting a true anonymous hobby phone. I'll also explain that I'll be switching my method of making arrangements to phone calls. I'll request they not email me and explain that if they do they'll get a response back claiming that while we may have seen each other in the past that I've retired as it is now illegal. Finally I'll work out a 'cover' story with them which we'll use when I call. This cover story will be an alternate reason for getting together such as 'hey, we haven't seen each other for a while, do you want to get together for dinner on such a date and time?'

 

The last thing would be to work out the payment. I traditionally pay at the start but I may switch to either paying at the end or paying by an alternate method such as an Interac transfer. I'm more concerned about getting caught on the communicating part than a cop busting in and finding a payment so I have to think more on this point.

 

This is of course if I decide to stay. Even then, once they retire, I'll be out.

[roamingguy 300291]

A lot of fear mongering. How many saw escorts at their incall location or booked agency ladies and didn't give a thought that it was illegal...and easy enough for police to set up stings to go after those who did have incalls or were agency ladies.

The police are going to set their own enforcement priorities based on their budgets not PM

There is no new resources allocated to police to enforce this new bill.

To rescue the prostitutes who PM claims he want saved from us pervs, twenty million is pathetic, actually a disgrace, and considering his speech, he should hang his head in shame instead of acting morally superior. It isn't even enough to even set up the bureaucracy needed to allocate funds to save the ladies

All PM cared about was getting Bedford/SCC case closed, and doing so in a way that appeased the Conservatives political constituency.

For those who are going to stop if this bill becomes law well everyone needs to do what is comfortable for them

But enforcement costs money, with no new money coming, how are police going to enforce this law the way some think they will

 

RG

[piano8950 32577]

A lot of fear mongering. How many saw escorts at their incall location or booked agency ladies and didn't give a thought that it was illegal...and easy enough for police to set up stings to go after those who did have incalls or were agency ladies.

 

Fear mongering may be true, but here is the key difference. The previous laws penalized the people who were providing the service, will not explicitly criminalizing the actual service.

 

The police seemed to have enough sense to not bother.

 

Here is a case where the actual transaction is now illegal, for the client. Now, I'm not familiar with the statute of limitations on this, but as pointed out, it's not the direct approach that scares me, but an indirect approach. Assume the DC Madam scandal happened here. With no C-36, the police would be sued if they released 15,000 phone numbers. After C-36, it's the owners of those numbers that are on the defensive.

 

Like I said above, giving police powers that they don't need, like the ones C-36 does by criminalizing clients, is scary shit. Power to you if you think we're being too cautious about the whole thing.

[Ice4fun 78396]

I was thinking something similar earlier today. While it's all well and good to stick to established SPs as some have suggested, if one of those SPs were to be investigated and LE gets access to a client list or correspondence pertaining to engaging in the hobby, you could still get nailed, unfortunately.

 

I don't really think this is a valid concern the chances that a charge would be laid and successful I think is minimal.

 

Just my opinion

[fortunateone 156618]

I don't really think this is a valid concern the chances that a charge would be laid and successful I think is minimal.

 

Just my opinion

 

 

They've had the ban on purchase for many years in Sweden, and they've never actually put anyone in jail. It seems to be a cash grab, the person gets a fine, pays the fine, but judges aren't giving out jail time. Not that it makes it any better, of course, but the way to get your name in the papers is to be something like the police chief, or a politician who owns massage parlours, or the justice dept lawyer who is in charge of actually laying charges against clients (all of which have been in the news in Sweden)

[Ice4fun 78396]

They've had the ban on purchase for many years in Sweden, and they've never actually put anyone in jail. It seems to be a cash grab, the person gets a fine, pays the fine, but judges aren't giving out jail time. Not that it makes it any better, of course, but the way to get your name in the papers is to be something like the police chief, or a politician who owns massage parlours, or the justice dept lawyer who is in charge of actually laying charges against clients (all of which have been in the news in Sweden)

 

I would be just as worried by a fine.... it means your convicted of the offense and have a record... for me that means unemployment.

[loopie 15358]

I do suspect that RoamingGuy is likely correct about the underfunded nature of this initiative. If passed, LE would most likely go for the low hanging fruit, because it's all they could afford to go after. They'd get one of their officers to pose as a prostitute and post an ad on some ad list page, then bust a bunch of guys who respond. They'd get their headlines, boasting that they had busted 50 perverts in a week or whatever. Then they'd probably ease off, and strike every now and then when they don't have anything better to do.

 

But just because the risk is low, doesn't mean the consequences aren't high. I think it is fair for clients to evaluate the potential risk to their marriages and careers. An arrest, even without a conviction, could still be quite disastrous for many men here's lives.

 

As for me, I follow the laws of the land even if I don't agree with them. I do, in fact, spend a lot of time in Sweden, during which time I obey their laws and do not have sex with prostitutes.

[Phaedrus 209521]

As for me, I follow the laws of the land even if I don't agree with them.

 

At least, the ones you're aware of.

 

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the average American commits three felonies every day. I have no idea whether or not this is true, but I think the point stands: there's an awful lot of laws that we may well break because we just don't know about them.

[jafo105 39057]

• 
  

At least, the ones you're aware of.

 

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the average American commits three felonies every day. I have no idea whether or not this is true, but I think the point stands: there's an awful lot of laws that we may well break because we just don't know about them.

 

 

There is an old saying, "Ignorance is 9/10ths of the law".

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

I do suspect that RoamingGuy is likely correct about the underfunded nature of this initiative. If passed, LE would most likely go for the low hanging fruit, because it's all they could afford to go after. They'd get one of their officers to pose as a prostitute and post an ad on some ad list page, then bust a bunch of guys who respond. They'd get their headlines, boasting that they had busted 50 perverts in a week or whatever. Then they'd probably ease off, and strike every now and then when they don't have anything better to do.

 

But just because the risk is low, doesn't mean the consequences aren't high. I think it is fair for clients to evaluate the potential risk to their marriages and careers. An arrest, even without a conviction, could still be quite disastrous for many men here's lives.

 

As for me, I follow the laws of the land even if I don't agree with them. I do, in fact, spend a lot of time in Sweden, during which time I obey their laws and do not have sex with prostitutes.

 

OK, BUT IF THE AD HAS NO WORDS OF SEXUAL SERVICE...then why would our ads be a target? I have a feeling the web sites that advertise are simply going to install a program that will kick off certain words, or if NOT THEN DO NOT REPLY TO THAT AD...such as " I will blow your mind with my GFE, or anything close to a sexual ad.

Our ads will more then likely state " come spend time with me" or " I am offering relaxation massage" as LADIES will not want to incriminate you by having a " sexual advertisement" in regards to you replying.

NO SP THAT UNERSTANDS THE LAW will want any of her clients being incriminated, so we will never ever answer or advertise sexual services.

 

I spoke to the fella that is charge of my ads in 411 directory, they are looking at simply changing the " escort" category. perhaps they will, or not? Time will tell.

[Mikeyboy 27113]

I am deeply concerned about this legislation as well. I don't believe that there will be mass enforcement and sting operations the day it is passed, but the risk level for me will still be very high. Getting "caught" would affect my personal life, my employment, my family, my volunteer positions.... everything.

 

I'm still not sure how it will affect my choice to hobby in the long run. Likely I will take some time off and take a "wait and see" position. I don't like to use the words "forever" or "never", as perspectives can change. I will likely step back for a bit though and wait to see what exactly the fallout will be and how enforcement will be handled.

 

Once again, the Conservatives who like to present themselves as moderates are trying to legislate morality and their own personal beliefs. It seems like they may get away with it this time. What is happening to my country?

[loopie 15358]

At least, the ones you're aware of.

 

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the average American commits three felonies every day. I have no idea whether or not this is true, but I think the point stands: there's an awful lot of laws that we may well break because we just don't know about them.

 

But this case I would be aware of the law.

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

[waterat 20911]

But this case I would be aware of the law.

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

There are many different provisions within the bill and we don't know how the courts will interpret them nor how LE will approach enforcement.

[mrrnice2 157005]

Well, first of all the initial question is a moot point because this is not the Nordic model. It is way way worse and for sex workers as well as clients.

 

One can always change their minds, as I have done in the past, but I believe that I have decided upon a course of action. Whether it is in fact practical will be determined by what this new proposed law REALLY means, and what the police do with it.

 

My rationale for what I am thinking is multifaceted but primarily two fold. First, as much as I respect what many have said about the police not doing serious enforcement, and not having budgets to do so, in my situation I do not believe that to be the case. In a larger city such as Ottawa then I probably would agree with that. I am in PEI however, a very small place with a very conservative population. ( I don't mean politically). Under direction of Charlottetown city council I could see the city police being directed to take action. It would make a lot of people VERY pleased to see that PEI is indeed upholding its, values`, and is nothing but a family vacation spot.

 

Whereas we are such a small market and there are very few women that travel in here, it would be nothing for a single officer to track her from our little airport and from there get to her clients. I`m not a cop and I am sure that I could do that simply by following the advertised dates of availability.`

 

The second factor in my tentative decision is based on the advertising provisions which are really yet to be clarified. Mr MacKay was very clear at his press conference that he considers the internet to be a public space and therefore will be inaccessible for advertising. IF, and that may be a big if, he is correct, then really it will be impossible to know when a lady is planning a trip and even then illegal for both of us ìf we communicate. I honestly do not accept that new code words or offers of free sex are going to hold water in a court room.

 

Finally, I went about fifteen months between Cerb dates, so for me celibacy is a viable, though not preferred, option. :(

 

After all of that preamble what I am thinking is a variety of things.

 

First, any encounters I may have will not happen on PEI. If ANY of what I said above is true then PEI will neither be a safe place to be a client nor a safe place to be an SP, in a legal sense.

 

Secondly, because of the communication ban, even presuming that advertising is allowed, it would be impossible for me to clarify ahead of time with someone that I don`t know and who does not know me what my preferences are, what her preferences are, and so on. Therefore it would be walking into a situation blind which is not something that I would enjoy and I`m guessing that the SP would not enjoy.

 

Finally between now and the time that this law really appears that it is going to become real, then it would be nice to communicate with a few women that interest me and have our chance to talk while it is legal. That being said, how many SP`s are going to be interested in emailing and communicating with some client named MN2 when there is no date fixed, no time period planned and all only on the chance that I might follow through!

 

Women that I have met before will probably be the ones that I choose to contact.

 

The whole thing sucks.

 

And yes, this image is for what all of you are out there thinking. :)

[drlove 37202]

Well, first of all the initial question is a moot point because this is not the Nordic model. It is way way worse and for sex workers as well as clients.

 

One can always change their minds, as I have done in the past, but I believe that I have decided upon a course of action. Whether it is in fact practical will be determined by what this new proposed law REALLY means, and what the police do with it.

 

My rationale for what I am thinking is multifaceted but primarily two fold. First, as much as I respect what many have said about the police not doing serious enforcement, and not having budgets to do so, in my situation I do not believe that to be the case. In a larger city such as Ottawa then I probably would agree with that. I am in PEI however, a very small place with a very conservative population. ( I don't mean politically). Under direction of Charlottetown city council I could see the city police being directed to take action. It would make a lot of people VERY pleased to see that PEI is indeed upholding its, values`, and is nothing but a family vacation spot.

 

Whereas we are such a small market and there are very few women that travel in here, it would be nothing for a single officer to track her from our little airport and from there get to her clients. I`m not a cop and I am sure that I could do that simply by following the advertised dates of availability.`

 

The second factor in my tentative decision is based on the advertising provisions which are really yet to be clarified. Mr MacKay was very clear at his press conference that he considers the internet to be a public space and therefore will be inaccessible for advertising. IF, and that may be a big if, he is correct, then really it will be impossible to know when a lady is planning a trip and even then illegal for both of us ìf we communicate. I honestly do not accept that new code words or offers of free sex are going to hold water in a court room.

 

Finally, I went about fifteen months between Cerb dates, so for me celibacy is a viable, though not preferred, option. :(

 

After all of that preamble what I am thinking is a variety of things.

 

First, any encounters I may have will not happen on PEI. If ANY of what I said above is true then PEI will neither be a safe place to be a client nor a safe place to be an SP, in a legal sense.

 

Secondly, because of the communication ban, even presuming that advertising is allowed, it would be impossible for me to clarify ahead of time with someone that I don`t know and who does not know me what my preferences are, what her preferences are, and so on. Therefore it would be walking into a situation blind which is not something that I would enjoy and I`m guessing that the SP would not enjoy.

 

Finally between now and the time that this law really appears that it is going to become real, then it would be nice to communicate with a few women that interest me and have our chance to talk while it is legal. That being said, how many SP`s are going to be interested in emailing and communicating with some client named MN2 when there is no date fixed, no time period planned and all only on the chance that I might follow through!

 

Women that I have met before will probably be the ones that I choose to contact.

 

The whole thing sucks.

 

And yes, this image is for what all of you are out there thinking. :)

 

I have to say I concur with what you've said. Even though I reside in a slightly larger city than yourself, I feel the risks for me are just as great. I for one have too much to lose in terms of my career, so even so much as an arrest or a charge that doesn't stick would spell disaster for me, so I think I'd be out completely. I'm still hoping for the best in terms of a new challenge, but even if it's successful, what's stopping the government from making prostitution 100% illegal? That's what really worries me...

[Guest Ou**or**n]

what's stopping the government from making prostitution 100% illegal? That's what really worries me...

 

Apparently Harper got push back from some of his caucus for not making it completely illegal. My guess is their legal advisors told them that such a law wouldn't have a prayer in the SCC. It would also have been a real wedge issue with them on the wrong side.

[drlove 37202]

Apparently Harper got push back from some of his caucus for not making it completely illegal. My guess is their legal advisors told them that such a law wouldn't have a prayer in the SCC. It would also have been a real wedge issue with them on the wrong side.

 

Ok.. I understand them being on the wrong side of a wedge issue, but I don't know how much of the voting population would cast their votes based on that. Moreover, I believe the SCC said there was nothing precluding Parliament from passing a law which does make prostitution completely illegal. Then again, maybe I'm wrong...

[fortunateone 156618]

This is what the SCC said:

 

Concluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes. The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. It will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach, reflecting different elements of the existing regime. Considering all the interests at stake, the declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.

 

 

This is what Jim Hillyer of Lethbridge had to say about advertising in general:

Mr. Speaker, a couple of concerns about the opposition to this bill.

 

A lot of the opposition is based on the assumption that the current status quo is full legalization. The sex worker's letter that he quoted, the lady was describing activities that are already illegal.

 

Advertising, soliciting, sexual services and doing it both online and in public are already illegal activities and so if these people are already willing to give their information during this illegal activity I'm not sure why they wouldn't be under this new legislation, this legislation actually does meet the spirit of the supreme court ruling.

 

They were clear in their ruling that they wanted -- that they were open and not only open but they requested that parliament seek legislation around prostitution just decriminalizing it or legalizing it all we would have to do is let the year go up and so it is clear they wanted to do something more than just get rid of all legislation.

 

So I would like the member to comment on this and explain how this doesn't meet the spirits of the supreme court ruling.

 

So Hillyer thinks that the new law isn't a problem because advertising (online) is already illegal which it is not, but that's not my main point. My main point is that he says because it is already illegal, but sps are doing it anyway, they can just continue to break the new laws just as they are breaking the current laws, so why is anyone objecting to the new laws?

[Cloud 1210]

Ok.. I understand them being on the wrong side of a wedge issue, but I don't know how much of the voting population would cast their votes based on that. Moreover, I believe the SCC said there was nothing precluding Parliament from passing a law which does make prostitution completely illegal. Then again, maybe I'm wrong...

 

Joy Smith and her current allies won't stand for full criminalization because it means criminalizing the "prostituted women". Current feminist thinking hates the concept of victim blaming/shaming, which is why the Nordic Model is so popular with them. I read an article that says Joy Smith does not like the parts of the bill where officers can arrest women for communicating anywhere a child could reasonably be present.