City may not license escorts

[tdcalgary]

I read in the paper today that the city of Calgary in all its bureacratic glory may decide that it is time to stop giving licenses to escorts and agencies. It is apparently considering such action because it could be construed that escorting is sanctioned by the city , and therefore LE. Calgary city hall apparently does not like to be associated with people that they give a license to. The city is considering two options;1)No licenses at all or 2) a license but you have to sign a contract saying that you know it does not give you the right to break other laws.

WOW, I vote conservative but man...this is too far.

Apparently its OK for people too get fucked , but it can only happen when sanctioned by all three levels of government . Hmm..I already did my taxes.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Apparently its OK for people too get fucked , but it can only happen when sanctioned by all three levels of government . Hmm..I already did my taxes.

If there's any fucking to be done, the government wants to do it!!

 

[Funloverking]

I think this all is just a bunch of BS. Legal or not, the oldest profession in the world will continue and it would be much safer for everyone if it was legal.

 

[Annalise Lane]

I think this all is just a bunch of BS. Legal or not, the oldest profession in the world will continue and it would be much safer for everyone if it was legal.

Canadian Prostitution Laws indicate that what we ladies do is legal. What isn't is the solicitation of and living off the avails ( to keep it simple )

Cities then decide to become our pimps by licencing us. They fall under bylaws... However the city of Calgary can't stop what we do because it's not illegal to offer sex for money.

Currently the Canadian laws also say that the computer ( internet ) and cell phones are not considered public. Which doesn't put us in a position of breaking solicitation rules.

And from a conversation I had with another gent on this board I learned that the rule... common bawdy house or house has be known for what it is servicing in-order for the charge to uphold in court.

Traveling ladies are not breaking any Canadian laws, just bylaws. A bylaw fine ( in Edmonton ) are 800 bucks, or as low as 250. And all their getting you for is working without a licence.

 

[tdcalgary]

I know the "prostitution laws" in Canada are fairly liberal, but Calgary bulids their own laws.The city seems to be determined to drive all the women to 3rd avenue. If its illegal to do anything ,anytime, thats what will happen. I am not sure street prostitution is what the city wants in the long haul.I mean look at the problem in Vancouver.

 

[rollins]

tdcalgary,

It may not be what they want, but they are doing a damn fine job of making it happen. In their puritan haste to appear virtuous they are doing the political equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and singing LA LA LA hoping that the problem will go away, instead of taking control of the problem, and actually doing something to help. If they really ever decide to own the problem, it would be simple for them to get girls off the street, off the drugs, and working in a safe and positive environment, instead they want to drive ever more girls into the gutter.

Bunch of gutless wonders. IMHO I know rank City Council right up there with Pimps, Drug Dealers, and Serial Killers.

 

[Alyssa Babe]

Traveling ladies are not breaking any Canadian laws, just bylaws. A bylaw fine ( in Edmonton ) are 800 bucks, or as low as 250. And all their getting you for is working without a licence.

I have been interested in this topic for nearly 4 years now. Truth is, the city's are breaking the law with these licenses in allot of ways. Section 465 (c) of Canadian law says "except where otherwise EXPRESSLY provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect to conspiracy:
(c) Every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offense not provided for in (a) {dealing with murder} or (b) {dealing with wrongful imprisonment} is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offense would, on conviction, be liable"

What this says is that, these city's are conspiring with agents and adult entertainment parlor owner/operators when they issue a license to them which allows them to "procure".
Procuring is an indictable offense bearing a potential for 10 years imprisonment, so conspiracy would in this case bear the same potential punishment.

Interestingly, the law defines a serious offense as any indictable offense which yields 5 years or more.

Solicitation for the purposes of prostitution is only a summary offense, so it is not considered a "serious offense" according to the canadian law.

Imagine, the municipalities committing several serious offenses to control 1 summary offense???????????

Don't get me wrong, I do believe licensing can be valuable. But the Ministry of Municipal affairs and housing Ontario have it right when they aloud for any industry, organization or Individual business to apply for Self Regulating Status. What self regulating status is a series of questions which need to be answered in order to operate with no municipal licensing while still maintaining the community standards which licensing provides? Remember licensing was not intended to be helpful to us except to add legitimacy; it was intended to keep our industry out of site from our children, Grandparents, Families, Church folks, and the common citizen.
Want to be Lawyer Aly signing out.

 

[Annalise Lane]

I have been interested in this topic for nearly 4 years now. Truth is, the city's are breaking the law with these licenses in allot of ways. Section 465 (c) of Canadian law says "except where otherwise EXPRESSLY provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect to conspiracy:
(c) Every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offense not provided for in (a) {dealing with murder} or (b) {dealing with wrongful imprisonment} is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offense would, on conviction, be liable"

What this says is that, these city's are conspiring with agents and adult entertainment parlor owner/operators when they issue a license to them which allows them to "procure".
Procuring is an indictable offense bearing a potential for 10 years imprisonment, so conspiracy would in this case bear the same potential punishment.

Interestingly, the law defines a serious offense as any indictable offense which yields 5 years or more.

Solicitation for the purposes of prostitution is only a summary offense, so it is not considered a "serious offense" according to the Canadian law.

Imagine, the municipalities committing several serious offenses to control 1 summary offense???????????

Don't get me wrong, I do believe licensing can be valuable. But the Ministry of Municipal affairs and housing Ontario have it right when they aloud for any industry, organization or Individual business to apply for Self Regulating Status. What self regulating status is a series of questions which need to be answered in order to operate with no municipal licensing while still maintaining the community standards which licensing provides? Remember licensing was not intended to be helpful to us except to add legitimacy; it was intended to keep our industry out of site from our children, Grandparents, Families, Church folks, and the common citizen.
Want to be Lawyer Aly signing out.

Okay I'm seriously not that smart to understand a lot of what you just said ... might you put it in grade 3 language so I can process it.

However, I think you went off the topic a bit ? What does housing have to do with escorting and having cities licence us ??

Seems each province has their own rules and bylaws around sex for hire.

Cities then decide to become our pimps by licencing us. They fall under bylaws... However the city of Calgary can't stop what we do because it's not illegal to offer sex for money.

or maybe you pulled the wrong quote out ... ?? In my silly ability to comprehend written language .. this quote suits your argument or information better ?

 

[Alyssa Babe]

Okay I'm seriously not that smart to understand a lot of what you just said ... might you put it in grade 3 language so I can process it.

However, I think you went off the topic a bit ? What does housing have to do with escorting and having cities licence us ??

Seems each province has their own rules and bylaws around sex for hire.

I am sorry that you found it difficult to understand, please do not think it is just you, many people including our political leaders across the country find allot of this difficult to understand.

What it says is that the provinces can not have different rules from the country, the law is the law and it is made from the supreme court of canada and the house of commons. The provinces can only make rules that fit within the federal law. The cities can only make rules that fit within the federal and provincial laws.


As for the housing issue that you were confused over, the 'ministry of municipal affairs and housing Ontario' is the organization which has developed the provincial rules for municipalities to follow. It just so happens that they as well handle the gear to income housing for the province as well. This legislation is called the municipal act. the municipal act is a piece of provincial "law" which allows the cities to make licenses for any business, but these licenses still cannot conflict with federal law. It does state this within the municipal act.

Mayor Eddy François (Windsor, Ontario) said it best when he said that as a Political leader, it is difficult to know exacting details about every type of business trade or calling. The best that we can do as leaders is to address an issue when it is presented to us and hope that it fits in everyone’s interests. If it does not then the only way we are ever going to know is if us as citizens present the problem and potentially a cure.

P.S Annalise, How is anyone supose to know anything without learning each individual lesson. Your to hard on yourself... It took me years to learn this and I had allot of help from some very inteligent people who are either educated in these topics or professionals in their feilds.

 

[Maury Beniowski]

The city's position is more ambiguous than what is suggested above...

Escort bylaw packs no punch

Licensing agencies meaningless without followup inspections

Calgary Herald

Published: Friday, February 24, 2006

It's always been debatable whether the city's escort bylaw does any real good in controlling prostitution. Until now, though, there's been no suggestion it does any real harm.

City council, the police and citizens have been willing to ignore the moral ambiguity of licensing an illegal activity in the belief that it may, in some small way, help to keep teens and organized criminals out of the sex trade.

That all changed this week when an escort agency owner successfully used the bylaw to defend himself against prostitution charges. His argument was that by providing him a licence, the city, in essence, condoned his business.

This is exactly what opponents of the bylaw warned of in the mid-1990s, the last time the issue was up for debate.

In 1995, the Calgary Police Commission and city administrators urged council to scrap the bylaw, arguing its very existence could be used -- legally -- to justify prostitution. At the time, experts argued licensing was the first step toward legalization.

Instead, council beefed up regulations, requiring police background checks and fingerprinting of agency owners, and proof from escorts that they were over 18.

The accepted wisdom since then is that, while not perfect, the bylaw helps keep underage girls out of the escort trade and provides a tool to prevent organized criminals and drug dealers from getting a foothold in the business.

Of course, what is ignored is that teenagers and criminals denied licences can simply work the streets. In fact, police have estimated that escort services account for only one per cent of their investigations into the sex trade.

Also ignored is that there is virtually no followup after a licence is issued. There are no regular inspections, no ongoing oversight. Until a complaint is laid -- usually a tip-off from a competitor -- it's assumed everything is hunky-dory.

And then, of course, there's the implied hypocrisy. Escort agencies are licensed to provide "companionship for discussion purposes."

But everyone -- everyone --knows they provide sex for money. Police estimate 95 per cent of all escort activity is prostitution.

Prostitution isn't illegal, but soliciting and living off the avails are. By providing licences for a morally compromised business, the city is, to some degree, complicit.

Ideally, if municipalities are going to regulate this business, they should do it thoroughly. In addition to screening at licence application time, regular inspections, interviews and health checks should follow.

Many who work in the trade say licensing helps prevent the worst excesses and gives girls -- at least those over 18 -- a safer option to the street corner. Maybe it does, but the litmus test should be that it does not hamper efforts to prosecute pimps. Calgary's bylaw has not met the standard and should be revisited to close this loophole.

© The Calgary Herald 2006