Senate Bill 94

The laws that cover "bawdy houses" were struck down in Ontario some time ago.

The other laws you mention are currently being argued before the Supreme Court, and while still on the books, are clearly in place to deal with street prostitution and pimps. Incall and outcall providers operate and advertise openly. Advertising never has been considered "communication for the purpose of", even prior to the current debate surrounding these laws.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06...lization-foes/

Advertising is wide open here, with providers listing specific services and prices in the weekly newpapers. After spending every single day for the past 29 years, working in the industry in both Canada and the US, I feel very confident in my knowledge of what is a reasonable fear and what is paranoia. If you don't agree, that's perfectly okay with me. I respect your opinion, and I also feel my opinion and contribution to the discussion is worthwhile.

Always,
Gina Originally Posted by GinaXXX

I enjoyed our discussion. Of course I like your contribution. Personally I think it would be nice if both our countries reconsidered the entire legality issue regarding prostitution as the providers are adults and should have the ability to manage their own time and activities as a service they offer (plus imagine the tax benefit). It's a joke, but close to reality, that politicians are the biggest prostitutes and panderers of all!

From my perspective, I believe the ladies (providers) already have enough risk in their lives (just managing clients/service) without having the local/federal government be a large additional risk to be fearful of.

Well thankfully, the TOPIC of this thread is a civil issue, not criminal so there is no fear from LE at all reguarding this issue. And, as it appears to provide additional options for those abused by this occupation and poses little if any additional risk or burden on the average hobbiests, its all good.

I can just imagine the daytime commercials now ...

Been pimped out? Tired of constant sexual harassment? Does your employer unfairly garnish your wages? Unsanitary work conditions?

Then call Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe (not licensed anywhere) and we'll get the settlement you deserve.

I would find a funny lawyer ad to insert ... but ... I better not.

If politicians were providers.....


suck-yo-dick-fo-a-dolla.jpg

I can just imagine the daytime commercials now ...

Been pimped out? Tired of constant sexual harassment? Does your employer unfairly garnish your wages? Unsanitary work conditions?

Then call Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe (not licensed anywhere) and we'll get the settlement you deserve.

I would find a funny lawyer ad to insert ... but ... I better not. Originally Posted by omakase

Lmao Dewey, Cheatum Howe!!! Too funny!

Do you have an ownership stake or business interest in ECCIE? No.
Do you purchase, broker, or have any involvement in advertisement? No.
Are you a pimp? No (hopefully).

Then I'm pretty sure that it doesn't apply to the vast majority of us.

Could somebody seek civil remedy under the new law that is inconsistent with legislative history? Yes, but unlikely.

How concerned should you be? Not much unless you piss off a provider so much that she's willing to take you to court. But she didn't need SB94 to do that. Originally Posted by omakase

I'm not concerned as a poster. I'm concerned that perhaps the board will go away is someone sues whoever owns it. I find ECCIE as valuable source of information. One can be concerned for altruistic reasons.

I always liked:

Ketchum, Cheatum & Winn.

:-)

P411 is a 100% Canadian owned and operated company, and subject only to the laws of Canada.

Always,
Gina Originally Posted by GinaXXX

Gina, I'd like to send you a private message on this, but find that you don't receive PM's. If you will drop me a PM with an email address, I have some information that may be of interest to you in this regard.

Tex

I sue folks for a living and make a damned good living at it. The real issue is that the real pimps are judgment proof. They don't have a pot or a window.

So if someone in my position is approached by a provider who truly has been abused, the only real hope of recovery is to sue an advertising site or review site. BP is the first choice because they have a large, corporate owner. Sites like Eros and P411 that appear well run and successful would be in the second tier. The third tier targets would be review boards. The more bigger, more successful ones like TER would be at the top of the list, with smaller regional ones like ECCIE at the bottom.

But contingent fee lawyers are very smart. They're like Willie Sutton, the famous bank robber. When Willie was asked why he robbed banks, he looked puzzled and replied, "Because that's where the money is!" Lawyers who work for a percentage of the recovery don't take bad suits. They don't take good suits against folks who can't pay. They only take good suits against folks who have money. Otherwise, they don't get paid. But the advertising site will now be in the crosshairs.

I think most SOs find out about their hubby's secret adventures which leads to a lot of the dislike towards providers just as it did around the late 1800s in Texas. Election times always, always, always spark the hate that already exist from SOs with this problem. There is nothing they can do to stop providers from seducing their horny hubbies so I bet those new law petitions from career motivated politicians is the perfect way to attack the profession. Nothing will change but the way providers advertise, and so be it!