VPD vice posting underage SP ads on escort sites/social media confirmed
- Thread starter PoorGuy
- Start date
- Status
Some thoughts:
Predators.....
When I was in high school, I always thought it was odd that older guys (early 20s/college guys) would come around the high school trying to pick up the girls in high school. Sometimes they succeeded..... Were these guys predators?
Look up child marriages (women under age 18). It happens in Canada, the US, Europe and the rest of the world. Seems underage sex is happening everywhere and not just in sex work.
It takes alot to change people's attitudes towards things especially if it involves culture and religion and don't count out money. Look up Behaviour Analysis.
Unfortunately human trafficking is a modern day reality with underage women forced into the sex industry because there is a market for it (money to be made) by unscrupulous people.
Predators.....
When I was in high school, I always thought it was odd that older guys (early 20s/college guys) would come around the high school trying to pick up the girls in high school. Sometimes they succeeded..... Were these guys predators?
Look up child marriages (women under age 18). It happens in Canada, the US, Europe and the rest of the world. Seems underage sex is happening everywhere and not just in sex work.
It takes alot to change people's attitudes towards things especially if it involves culture and religion and don't count out money. Look up Behaviour Analysis.
Unfortunately human trafficking is a modern day reality with underage women forced into the sex industry because there is a market for it (money to be made) by unscrupulous people.
There is a big difference between a 20 year old come around a school trying to meet and later sleep with a 15 year old, and a grown ass 40 year old man offering to buy sex from a random 15 year old online.
While the 20 year old and 15 year old relationship is legal, it is still kind of creepy.
Certainly, but far less creepy than the old guy paying for under age sex.
Also, context usually plays a role in determination of this. How they met, nature and duration of relationship, power and authority factors etc.
So my advice still stands: "don't be a scumbag for underage sex" - regardless.
Until 2008, the age of consent in Canada was 14. It was a significant improvement to raise it to 16. The changes in mentality take time.
And no, a relationship between 15 and 20 year olds is not ok under the current laws either. The exception is for "less than 5 years older" partner for 14-15 y.o.
Even before the Supreme Court case, many agencies and massage parlors thrived because they didn't offer sex, just companionship and massage.
I am most familiar with Toronto from over 15 years of visits there. After C36 most of the large agencies opened incalls and do not offer "sex" only time with beautiful women. I know one that invited the police in and they will follow help with any situation with no concern about C36 where agencies are illigal if they offer sex for money, so they don't.
Likewise, body rubs - a happy ending is just given, no fee, no tip, no one pays a fee for sex just the various forms of massage.
This follows the "safety of persons" and harm reduction attitude of the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding the Superior Court tossing the old law. Now C36 if facing a similar challenge by an arrest a small, conservative Ontario city with good lawyers arguing C36 likewise violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - specificaly the safety of persons clause.
Several of the comments above are confusing the law, Bill C-36, with the enforcement policies that individual police departments choose to adopt.
My comment was "Operating any business that profits from sex work is a criminal offence."
Examples of some of the responses are:
"That is true if they declare they offer sex for money."
"many agencies and massage parlors thrived because they didn't offer sex, just companionship and massage."
"a happy ending is just given, no fee, no tip, no one pays a fee for sex just the various forms of massage."
Claims that the money paid is for time or some other service but not sex will be meaningless in court. If it goes to court the crown will try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that regardless of what language the ads or offers used, it was sexual services for consideration (money). Saying the money was for conversation and the sex was free will not make any difference.
It is important to understand this so that everyone understands it is the choice of police departments to make some enforcement "a low priority" that is protecting the industry, it's workers and clients, not some word games that advertisers are using.
Here is what the law 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 an indictable offence.
286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit [under some specified conditions].
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if that person received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.
All this will be determined on the facts, regardless of how the accused describes the transaction. We need to understand the difference between what the police can do under the law and what they are choosing to do.
We need to appreciate the value of the work done by those like Susie who have persuaded the police to make consensual adult activities a "low priority".
My comment was "Operating any business that profits from sex work is a criminal offence."
Examples of some of the responses are:
"That is true if they declare they offer sex for money."
"many agencies and massage parlors thrived because they didn't offer sex, just companionship and massage."
"a happy ending is just given, no fee, no tip, no one pays a fee for sex just the various forms of massage."
Claims that the money paid is for time or some other service but not sex will be meaningless in court. If it goes to court the crown will try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that regardless of what language the ads or offers used, it was sexual services for consideration (money). Saying the money was for conversation and the sex was free will not make any difference.
It is important to understand this so that everyone understands it is the choice of police departments to make some enforcement "a low priority" that is protecting the industry, it's workers and clients, not some word games that advertisers are using.
Here is what the law 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 an indictable offence.
286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit [under some specified conditions].
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if that person received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.
All this will be determined on the facts, regardless of how the accused describes the transaction. We need to understand the difference between what the police can do under the law and what they are choosing to do.
We need to appreciate the value of the work done by those like Susie who have persuaded the police to make consensual adult activities a "low priority".
So, then, if the court can't prove that sex took place the Crown has no case. Both John and SP are equally culpable and motivated to keep quiet with Stephen Harper's modification of law.
no, under the harper regime only the sex buyer is culpable, sex selling is "legal" so the SP does not need to be "quiet". so all crown has to prove is that the client "bought" the service. once the money is handed over, the client has committed a crime.
in vancouver there is no worry for either side if clients purchase services within what has been deemed acceptable by society at large. do not purchase the services of an under age person or from someone you believe might be exploited.
love susie
I have always found this interesting. It is legal to sell the service, but illegal to purchase. My question becomes how can it be said to be purchased if the service is never provided? It must be intent to purchase that is enough to be illegal. But then how do you prove what the intent was without the actual physical act of sex? If the John doesn't say what the money is for, and sex doesn't take place I really wonder how it could stand up in court.
so in this case, the clients were negotiating the price for sexual services with the VPD over text message and agreed to the price for sexual service and then arrived at the location to acquire the service....so it was the text messages agreeing specifically to pay for sexual services from the "youth" followed by actually arriving at the scene to acquire said service which constituted the crime.
my understanding is they worked with prosecutors to understand what kind of evidence they would need for convictions and from that they developed their texting strategy. remember, entrapment is not illegal in canada...the police can lie and manipulate all they want to secure convictions.
love susie
my understanding is they worked with prosecutors to understand what kind of evidence they would need for convictions and from that they developed their texting strategy. remember, entrapment is not illegal in canada...the police can lie and manipulate all they want to secure convictions.
love susie
Speaking in general (adult, consensual, not underage), one of the many weird things about this law is that aiding and abetting is also a crime. So it would normally follow that an SP selling someone sexual services (or advertising it), even if exempt under section 4, is essentially abetting the crime of buying sexual services. I wonder if they could leverage this aspect to force an SP to testify against a buyer, lest they be considered aiding and abetting by withholding knowledge of a crime. The mental gymnastics of this law are world class.
More misinformation to address. In practical terms the info is valid but the law is being misrepresented.
"under the Harper regime only the sex buyer is culpable, sex selling is "legal""
Not True. Only the buyer can be prosecuted but both buying or selling the service and communication for the purpose buying the service is a criminal offence.
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 an indictable offence.
286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence.
Sex workers are not exempt from the application of this law in the way that some third parties are exempt. Sex workers only have immunity from prosecution. This leaves service providers open to investigation, arrest, property seizure, eviction and apprehension of children.
"all crown has to prove is that the client "bought" the service"
The crown only needs to prove that the client communicated for the purpose of buying the service. See 286.1 (1) above.
"It is legal to sell the service, but illegal to purchase."
This is not true. Both buying and selling the service used to be legal. This was part of the argument used to strike down the previous laws but the Conservatives cunningly made both purchase and sale of services a criminal offence so that it would be more difficult to strike down the new laws. The Conservative then misled everyone by saying they were targeting the buyer but not the seller as if imunity from prosecution was the same as making an activity legal.
"entrapment is not illegal in canada"
This is misleading. Entrapment can be used as a defence if you are convicted as was the case of the couple who were convicted of intending to place pressure cooker bombs around the legislature in Victoria. They were acquitted because the RCMP were found to have used entrapment. The definition of entrapment is complicated and the police may not be committing a crime when they use it but it can be used as a defence and I think you only have to prove it "on balance of probability" to use it as a defence. I understand the police can be somewhat "pressing and persistent" in their encouragement of a crime if they have reason to believe the person was likely to commit the crime in the absence of their encouragement. That test would have been met when the punters replied to the ads the police posted. Having committed a crime by replying to the ad, the police would be free to continue with an offer of under age services without allowing the defence of entrapment.
I understand the police can lie all they want but there are limits on their manipulation. Another example of the limits on manipulation is the "Mr. Big Stings" which have been limited by the courts.
"under the Harper regime only the sex buyer is culpable, sex selling is "legal""
Not True. Only the buyer can be prosecuted but both buying or selling the service and communication for the purpose buying the service is a criminal offence.
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 an indictable offence.
286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence.
Sex workers are not exempt from the application of this law in the way that some third parties are exempt. Sex workers only have immunity from prosecution. This leaves service providers open to investigation, arrest, property seizure, eviction and apprehension of children.
"all crown has to prove is that the client "bought" the service"
The crown only needs to prove that the client communicated for the purpose of buying the service. See 286.1 (1) above.
"It is legal to sell the service, but illegal to purchase."
This is not true. Both buying and selling the service used to be legal. This was part of the argument used to strike down the previous laws but the Conservatives cunningly made both purchase and sale of services a criminal offence so that it would be more difficult to strike down the new laws. The Conservative then misled everyone by saying they were targeting the buyer but not the seller as if imunity from prosecution was the same as making an activity legal.
"entrapment is not illegal in canada"
This is misleading. Entrapment can be used as a defence if you are convicted as was the case of the couple who were convicted of intending to place pressure cooker bombs around the legislature in Victoria. They were acquitted because the RCMP were found to have used entrapment. The definition of entrapment is complicated and the police may not be committing a crime when they use it but it can be used as a defence and I think you only have to prove it "on balance of probability" to use it as a defence. I understand the police can be somewhat "pressing and persistent" in their encouragement of a crime if they have reason to believe the person was likely to commit the crime in the absence of their encouragement. That test would have been met when the punters replied to the ads the police posted. Having committed a crime by replying to the ad, the police would be free to continue with an offer of under age services without allowing the defence of entrapment.
I understand the police can lie all they want but there are limits on their manipulation. Another example of the limits on manipulation is the "Mr. Big Stings" which have been limited by the courts.
Last edited:
Immunity — aiding, abetting, etc.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services.
The sex worker commits the crime of Aiding and Abetting just as they commit the crime of receiving a Material benefit from sexual services but they cannot be prosecuted. It still gives the police more justification for any harassment. We are fortunate that the police in BC have chosen to be reasonable.
What is your authoritative source for your interpretation?
You cite Subsections (1) and (2) as proof it applies to selling, yet make no mention of Subsections (4) and (5) which explicitly provide the exemption. From your own earlier post:
The "person receiving the benefit" is the seller and Subsection (4) explicitly exempts them from Subsections (1) and (2).
Hi there,
Well, as for myself, if someone tells me she is underage (I guess they had said that, right?) it will be impossible to proceed with the actual meeting.
But generally speaking, what is the current situation regarding sex work in Vancouver? Do they raid and arrest ppl even if they are both consenting adults? Does anyone know?
clu, first, sorry about the typo. I have edited the post.
I have no authoritative source for my interpretation. I am giving my own interpretation by a plain reading of the Criminal Code. The Conservatives provided no useful definitions and I believe there is no case law on this. Hopefully there never will be any case law on this. I have been saying this for two years or so and no one has provided an alternative interpretation.
286.1 deals with "Obtaining sexual services for consideration" and does not apply directly to the seller. We need to look at 286.2
Material benefit from sexual services
286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence.
Any money (or other material benefit) a service provider receives in return for sexual services is obtained by or derived directly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1) and as a result the sex worker or service provider is guilty of an indictable offence.
286.2(4) says that 286.2(1) does not apply to some third parties who knowingly accept money or other benefits from a sex worker. It does not apply to the sex worker.
286.2(5) is just a limitation of 286.2(4) and again does not apply to the sex worker.
Exception
(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit
(a) in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;
(b) as a result of a legal or moral obligation of the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;
(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and conditions, to the general public; or
(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.
No exception
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if that person
(a) used, threatened to use or attempted to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;
(b) abused a position of trust, power or authority in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;
(c) provided a drug, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived for the purpose of aiding or abetting that person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration;
(d) engaged in conduct, in relation to any person, that would constitute an offence under section 286.3; or
(e) received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.
I have no authoritative source for my interpretation. I am giving my own interpretation by a plain reading of the Criminal Code. The Conservatives provided no useful definitions and I believe there is no case law on this. Hopefully there never will be any case law on this. I have been saying this for two years or so and no one has provided an alternative interpretation.
286.1 deals with "Obtaining sexual services for consideration" and does not apply directly to the seller. We need to look at 286.2
Material benefit from sexual services
286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence.
Any money (or other material benefit) a service provider receives in return for sexual services is obtained by or derived directly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1) and as a result the sex worker or service provider is guilty of an indictable offence.
286.2(4) says that 286.2(1) does not apply to some third parties who knowingly accept money or other benefits from a sex worker. It does not apply to the sex worker.
286.2(5) is just a limitation of 286.2(4) and again does not apply to the sex worker.
Exception
(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit
(a) in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;
(b) as a result of a legal or moral obligation of the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;
(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and conditions, to the general public; or
(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.
No exception
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if that person
(a) used, threatened to use or attempted to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;
(b) abused a position of trust, power or authority in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;
(c) provided a drug, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived for the purpose of aiding or abetting that person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration;
(d) engaged in conduct, in relation to any person, that would constitute an offence under section 286.3; or
(e) received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.
- Status
