Johns, not prostitutes to be thrust under microscope in 2016

Trying to get it on with an underage escort was totally illegal before C36 became law, and will undoubtedly remain so as and when the current laws get revisited. I'm not sure quite why they're trying to spin the story so that it looks like the new laws had something to do with it.

If this raid in Ontario is a sign of things to come in 2016 then it is certainly not good news. I don't know if the police postings on BP were clearly advertising "underage" or not but if it was just a younger looking girl and they charged everyone who turned up under the new laws then it is scary and will certainly make it difficult for ladies just entering the business.

For most of us on this board it will not be a big issue as we most likely see established ladies...

I think one thing being missed here, is that you cannot advertise on bp as underage. You must put a minimum age of 18. So, they are posting pictures of girls who are obviously underage, but listed as 18.

 

Before c-36, the stings were for street workers. Now they are going after clients from backpage. Things to keep in mind.

 

The pictures are of young girls

They are always incall to the hotel

They want specific discussions of sexual services for money

 

Do your homework. View their recommendations, view their websites, ask your fellow pooners. If the ad says "barely legal, young, etc" and new with no background, stay clear. They haven't stopped, and are just beginning their sweeps. Ladies who are obviously over 18 are getting visits to make sure we arn't exploited. So stay safe everyone.

This is sage advice , follow it and you are going to be fine . Thank you Meaghan !

What about places like Paradise or Angels? Can they be targeted as well? Or are they looking mainly at places like BP where Johns are seeking out underage girls?

In the sting, during the booking process, the 'sp' was telling the potential clients that they were under 18.

 

At least one of the guys charged who was asked by media said that he felt more like he was being forced to go see her, as he'd declined more than once, and felt that the texts would show that. might be a story, might be true. I know that when they did this in Victoria, they only had 2 guys show up, and one of them was ESL and had asked if the 16 was legal age, and been told yes it was OK. being from another country, he was being led to the sting (probably because no one was showing up)

 

And that victoria sting, was done prior to c36 because yes, of course it was, and still is, illegal to solicit the services of anyone under 18. and yes, it is and was possible to charge them under the original criminal laws, and would be criminal after the 3 laws were repealed by the SCoC, no one changed minimum ages.

 

I think the majority, not all, of these guys should have gone to court. i realize it is an embarrassing process, but i think that many of them could have pushed the process of this sting, and shown that LE was luring, not the other way around. i know that the old laws were pushed to ridiculous lengths until the courts shut LE down for how liberally they were applying the public solicitation law against sps and clients. In one court case, they charged a guy who was in his car and blinked his lights on and off as 'public solicitation'. that being decades ago, they pissed off the courts with all the frivolous charges, and things changed.

 

and what they don't mention is the vast majority of the callers on that fake ad declined to proceed or offered advice to the underage 'teen' to stop.

From my perspective if the proceeded to the hotel after being told the SP was underage then there really is no excuse even if LE was luring. Guy who knowingly book with underage SP'S make it harder for everyone else in this lifestyle.

Just my Opinion

I think one thing being missed here, is that you cannot advertise on bp as underage. You must put a minimum age of 18. So, they are posting pictures of girls who are obviously underage, but listed as 18.

 

Before c-36, the stings were for street workers. Now they are going after clients from backpage. Things to keep in mind.

 

The pictures are of young girls

They are always incall to the hotel

They want specific discussions of sexual services for money

 

Do your homework. View their recommendations, view their websites, ask your fellow pooners. If the ad says "barely legal, young, etc" and new with no background, stay clear. They haven't stopped, and are just beginning their sweeps. Ladies who are obviously over 18 are getting visits to make sure we arn't exploited. So stay safe everyone.

It is kind of confusing, if two adults are over the age of 18 and the purchase was for the time only, would the client still be breaking the law ?

What about licenced body rub by the city of Ottawa, do they break the law as well? If ladies who are over the age of 18 are getting visits, if it happens that they are with a client would the client be charged ?

In the sting, during the booking process, the 'sp' was telling the potential clients that they were under 18.

Glad to hear that. It makes sense - if they're going to prosecute someone, it would be necessary to prove that he knew he was going to see someone who was underage. It also makes it pretty easy for guys to avoid it, and quite honestly, I don't have any sympathy for those who didn't.

Mind you, I'm not surprised it wasn't in the original article... they're trying to spread fear among all potential clients, even the careful ones, and I have no doubt the omission was deliberate.

and what they don't mention is the vast majority of the callers on that fake ad declined to proceed or offered advice to the underage 'teen' to stop.

Of course not. That fact is not compatible with the propaganda.

The Criminal Code of Canada draws a distinction between soliciting sexual services from someone who is 18 and over versus someone who is under 18. Both are offences, but the primary difference is the minimum and maximum sentences for each type of offence.

A conviction for soliciting someone under 18 results in a mandatory prison sentence of between 6 months and 10 years (see Criminal Code excerpt below). In the case of a conviction for soliciting sexual services from someone 18 and over the minimum sentences are fines and the maximum is 18 months. (The minimum sentence is higher if the solicitation occurs where youth under the age of 18 can be expected to be present such as near schools, parks and religious institutions.)

In case anyone is wondering, 18 is also the minimum age for pornography. Pornography with youth under 18 is child pornography.

286.1 (2) 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 under the age of 18 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(a) for a first offence, six months; and

(b) for each subsequent offence, one year.

The sentences for "procuring" (pimp, agency etc) the sexual services of someone under 18 are much greater (5-14 years).

286.3 (2) Everyone who procures a person under the age of 18 years to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(2), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person under the age of 18 who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years.

I love how they aren't concerned about providing the details of how it went down. It's simply wonderful how unaccountable police and other government officials are to the public they are supposedly meant to serve :p

Completely agree with Meaghan ! Thank you

Well-written article on the criminalization of clients here: https://www.slixa.com/late-night/496-why-the-criminalization-of-clients-is