C36 has passed in the House of Commons

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Looks like it is only a matter of time then for this bill to become law and probably by Christmas. Then i guess sites like CERB will be no more.

 

There would be no reason for CERB to go, as long as all providers are independently doing own ads and NOT selling sexual service, it is like the old days for time only. Hour, HH, multi hours. No talk on abbreviations. Book blindly with those you never met.

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

Cyclo, thank you. However, something I've always wondered.

 

If talking on a cell phone, in a public place. I'm always cautious when I am out shopping for example. If my clients want to discuss specifics, I've always gone to my car to discuss. Or if he's out and about. Or, on the Internet at an Internet cafe. Or worse, where children are around.

 

These older laws were written before cells and WIFI. Just wondering.

[fortunateone 156618]

They may have been paired, in which case it would have made no difference to the final margin.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_%28parliamentary_convention%29

 

 

 

The Internet has been previously found not to be a "place" under the old communications law (I forget the case, but it was pre-Bedford). I'm not sure if C36 explicitly mentions the Internet or not, but... absent anything else, it probably still isn't a place.

 

 

plus emails fall under the 'not a public place', because the test of whether something is public (illegal) or private (legal) is if there is an expectation of privacy, and that you and only you (and who you correspond/communicate with) is the only person who is going to be exposed to the communications.

 

That is why phone calls were deemed to not be public solicitation and

/or public communication, because there is an expectation of privacy.

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

So after reading this post, the way I see this is that we may advertise for time, massage, hosting and social engagements, that is one thing but

now any sexual contact would just have to be free/no charge consensual act amongst adults. ..

( loop hole language) lol

 

This why our advertising has to be safe, even though we seem to under a haze of " well I am indy" that's just a part of it...

 

As that article read, it stated that we could be also be basically helping to commit a crime. So I strongly feel that we simply need to stop enquiring about it, advertising it as sex service. I do not charge for sex, but my time in hosting, social engagements, entertainment, then would they really want to bother trying to build case?

 

I am not trying to speak in one direction, but these loops have always worked. I have been watching my Maritime news, and just tonight it has been said, regardless of what is to come they simply will be looking for those who sadly are trafficked, forced, will be all the budget and manpower could support.

 

As it has been before if you get down to the dirt....

it has always been illegal to have in call ( even private and hotels)

That never stopped most of our patrons.

Outcalls yes were legal, BUT if I remember in the CC it did say " any location used more than once???

Yes legal to sell...and purchase....but all other laws surrounding

like : material gain for us ladies,

But us provider continued to provide.

 

Anyway long winded post from a very busy mind! lol

[Phaedrus 209521]

PS, some of you might want to check out the new twitter hash-tag and campaign started by Megan Walker called #outajohn

 

Or not. Megan Walker's a nasty piece of work. DNFTT.

[Guest Cr**gCa***ng]

Although I am not overly concerned about this pending legislation from a personal perspective I am concerned about the impact upon those in the profession who are there of their own free will and enjoy their work. As a responsible and caring person I do not want to see anyone exploited or coerced into the business. I will continue to enjoy the company of my special friends whom I treat with dignity, respect, courtesy and discretion. I hope that CERB will live on and that we adjust to the inevitable, yet in the mean time I will continue to make new friends and build a strong network based upon trust. Again, from a personal perspective I am less than happy with any government intruding upon my life as an unattached widower who spends time with companions who are legally able to consent to being with me and who are well cared for and are compensated for their time. If I am to become a "criminal" for this then so be it. Since my wife died I have gone through the worst period of my entire life and the ladies I have seen are made aware of my situation and circumstances. These ladies care more about me than does the government which has now become overly intrusive into our daily lives. Sex has been one of the cornerstones of our lives and intimacy is even more important for one's well-being yet here I am to soon be criminalized for having no one in my life with me anymore who can/will love me and give me some comfort and intimacy. Yet here we have the "holier than thou" pro C-36ers telling me I am destined for a criminal record and/or purgatory so I guess I am doomed.

[dread pirate roberts 4036]

This is not correct, but I can understand the source of the confusion. Let me explain.

 

The preamble to Bill C-36 does state that one of the objectives of the Criminal Code amendments is to "create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any public place for that purpose". This is the source of the confusion.

 

However, the law is not administered from the preamble to the Bill in the Criminal Code. The actual Criminal Code amendments written in Bill C-36 still use the phrase "communication in any public place". The definitions of "place" and "public place" used in Bill C-36 are unchanged from the existing prostitution laws.

 

That's true for the communication part for SPs. But the "purchasing" part, and the communication part applying to customers, does apply anywhere. It says:

 

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of

 

 

 

(a) an indictable offence...

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

That's true for the communication part for SPs. But the "purchasing" part, and the communication part applying to customers, does apply anywhere. It says:

 

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of

 

(a) an indictable offence...

And this is why no one will be communicating "for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person".

 

It will be strictly for time and companionship only...

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

And this is why no one will be communicating "for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person".

 

It will be strictly for time and companionship only...

 

I am patiently trying to explain this to my friends as well. I am having issues with PPL who are reading my web site, and they read my service page and are confused.

 

" HOUR"

" see where the moment takes us"

" brisk get away encounter"

" social engagements"

" happy massage"

 

You must learn to read between lines, stop asking for sex. Use just a bit of imagination. I would think for those who are booking a new lady ( meaning one you never booked but appears established) the rates should tell you something. Once you are behind closed doors, then see what is offered. If a lady that is new to the scene, see if she has an industry reference, and book blind.