Are-cops-turning-their-backs-on-feds-new-hooker-law?

[Guest S****r]

https://nowtoronto.com/news/features/are-cops-turning-their-backs-on-feds-new-hooker-law/

[Ice4fun 78396]

It's kinda nice to see that our police forces nationally are continuing to use discretion and considering the broader issues of worker safety and community good when implementing this new law rather than just fall into lock step with Harpers moralistic right wing approach. !they seem to better understand the issues around the industry then the politicians.

 

That said I don't think we are out of the woods yet.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Seaniew3 340]

I was a CERB member for a few months and came back to see Lyla, which is nice and a great supportive community.

Coming back after the introduction of the new law, I was expecting to see a lot of discussion on its ramifications and ways for both SPs and clients to be safe. It seems that the issue is being treated with a bit of silence. Is it because the new law has not been enforced in any jurisdictions, or that we are missing input from folks that might have been affected by it?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[drlove 37202]

It's kinda nice to see that our police forces nationally are continuing to use discretion and considering the broader issues of worker safety and community good when implementing this new law rather than just fall into lock step with Harpers moralistic right wing approach. !they seem to better understand the issues around the industry then the politicians.

 

That said I don't think we are out of the woods yet.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

 

Certainly true in all respects. While I believe LE is taking a prudent, sensible approach at this point, it is still early in the game. I wish these types of articles were not written, as they put pressure on LE to enforce C-36, lest they are seen as "not doing their job" by some, as it were. That said, we may still see the occasional bust on the streets, and perhaps even a situation where LE pose as incall escorts to nab would be clients in hotel rooms at one point or another.

 

However, by and large when compared to the States, LE has had more of a 'laissez faire' approach to the sex trade. As such, it is much more likely that C-36 will suffer the same fate as the 'bawdly house' law of old - e.g. technically on the books, but rarely, if ever enforced / acted upon. I often wonder though, if this turns out to be the case - on what grounds then, can C-36 be successfully challenged and overturned?

[Phaedrus 209521]

I was a CERB member for a few months and came back to see Lyla, which is nice and a great supportive community.

Coming back after the introduction of the new law, I was expecting to see a lot of discussion on its ramifications and ways for both SPs and clients to be safe. It seems that the issue is being treated with a bit of silence. Is it because the new law has not been enforced in any jurisdictions, or that we are missing input from folks that might have been affected by it?

 

The former, I think. The only real effect of the new law that I can see is that we have to be more careful about what's discussed and what isn't (hence the censorship you may have seen), and ladies - and especially agencies - have to be careful about what they advertize. Lyla seems to be taking a rather more play-it-safe approach to this than some other places. The official myth is that nobody here is offering sec for money... when we spend time with the ladies we... well, I don't know what we do, but it's definitely not sex, okay? ;)

 

But apart from that, I don't think there's been much impact on who does what with whom. I've also heard that there's a lot of folks out there who don't know the law changed at all!

 

Additional Comments:

Certainly true in all respects. While I believe LE is taking a prudent, sensible approach at this point, it is still early in the game. I wish these types of articles were not written, as they put pressure on LE to enforce C-36, lest they are seen as "not doing their job" by some, as it were.

 

I disagree. The zealots will always complain that not enough heretics are being rounded up and burned at the stake; nobody else cares about quotas.

 

That said, we may still see the occasional bust on the streets, and perhaps even a situation where LE pose as incall escorts to nab would be clients in hotel rooms at one point or another.

 

Occasional bust on the streets, yes - this is far and away the most visible sector of the industry, and therefore the one that the public tends to complain about. Posing as incall escorts? I was originally concerned about this possibility too, but so far it doesn't seem to be happening and I recall having one conversation with one of our lovely ladies where she gave me some good reasons why it'd be very unlikely. Unfortunately, I can't remember what they were :(

 

However, by and large when compared to the States, LE has had more of a 'laissez faire' approach to the sex trade. As such, it is much more likely that C-36 will suffer the same fate as the 'bawdly house' law of old - e.g. technically on the books, but rarely, if ever enforced / acted upon. I often wonder though, if this turns out to be the case - on what grounds then, can C-36 be successfully challenged and overturned?

 

The same way as the old laws were: by demonstrating that the restrictions imposed make things more dangerous for sex workers. The fact that LE don't bother enforcing the law much isn't actually relevant; what matters is that the law exists.

[Katherine of Halifax 113932]

I am optimistic about this. With police turning their backs on this as mere rubbish I think in one year all this will be forgotten.

 

Ladies that run a quiet, discreet service have no more worries that they did before. Likewise for those of us that see guests in high end non suspicious hotels.

 

Gents are you nervous? Do your homework, see ladies , young of older with a reputation and everything will be fine.

 

Although there seems to be a few less visitors that is to be expected. We are all treading new water and some are less informed that others.

 

We are doing nothing wrong, lets hold our heads high and continue doing what we all love!

[fortunateone 156618]

Certainly true in all respects. While I believe LE is taking a prudent, sensible approach at this point, it is still early in the game. I wish these types of articles were not written, as they put pressure on LE to enforce C-36, lest they are seen as "not doing their job" by some, as it were. That said, we may still see the occasional bust on the streets, and perhaps even a situation where LE pose as incall escorts to nab would be clients in hotel rooms at one point or another.

 

However, by and large when compared to the States, LE has had more of a 'laissez faire' approach to the sex trade. As such, it is much more likely that C-36 will suffer the same fate as the 'bawdly house' law of old - e.g. technically on the books, but rarely, if ever enforced / acted upon. I often wonder though, if this turns out to be the case - on what grounds then, can C-36 be successfully challenged and overturned?

 

 

When Toronto's city council put out that letter, Joy Smith did an Op Ed whining about it all (either TO's letter or Vancouver's letter, ) I don't really remember because the impact of her complaint fell on totally deaf ears. As we can see by these comments in this more recent article.

 

LE has always had a number of laws that enabled them to pursue clients, managers and in the past, sps. Now they have the same laws, with different names, that enable them to pursue clients and managers (as in mps and agencies). In the past, being in any incall could lead to charges for both parties. LE never enforced it because it was a stupid amount of investigation to lay the charges, for minimal gain. VPD has always had the opinion, as Edmonton does about mps, that indoor locations are safer locations, and they don't get the public up in arms either, due to being out of sight. So no reports, no problems. Same stuff, different day, new name for the same socalled crimes.

 

These are just a new set of laws they will continue to have no interest in enforcing, just like the bawdy house laws, because they know that it is costly & time consuming to try, and that sps are safer where they are, indoors with or without managers.

 

The major effort will always be on the street trade because it is just so much easier. There used to be a limited interest in massage parlour activities, but the scoop (i.e # of arrests) would be minimal, compared to the cost to do them, so I haven't heard of one of those for quite some time. In the past, no doubt it was driven by complaints from the public, just as the street sweeps respond to those.

 

 

Re: the zealots. They will be super happy if the street trade appears to be smaller, and if a XXX massage parlour looks to be out of business. Many mps could do themselves a big favour (as in not getting noise complaints, etc) if they stopped going outside in skimpy clothes to have cigarettes and loud conversations (true story apparently). The zealots will also believe that trafficking has reduced in a major way when ads are no longer graphic to the point of obscene, & maybe when all sites prevent spamming by one or two agency/sps lol, so the overall number reduces, since they probably count them. It wouldn't hurt if the minimum age to put up ads was 19, then 'no one' would be young. Also no face pics, because zealots can tell by looking at a photo of someone who 'looks' young that they are underage. :)

 

We haven't broken the news to them yet that many ads have fake pics, and posted ages are not, um, shall we say 'accurate'?

[drlove 37202]

 

I disagree. The zealots will always complain that not enough heretics are being rounded up and burned at the stake; nobody else cares about quotas.:(

 

Perhaps, but we don't need to keep adding fuel to the fire... do we?

[PatrickGC 10792]

Ultimately C.-36 will be overturned on a multitude of grounds, not least of which, is that it interferes with a person's right to safety in society. By effectively distancing all concerned from legal protection. It ostracized the individual based solely on their choice of work, and literally prevents them from securing a safe work environment. It is in short a human rights disaster.

 

The truly violent in our society are not deterred by laws, and in this case the bill actually increases their control over another person. The police are well aware of this and are therefore quietly working around this unjust law.

 

PatrickGC