is escorting in Vancouver illegal

[HaywoodJabloemy]

Criminal Code...
212. (1) Every one who
(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person...

Is this what you're referring to that makes prostitution illegal?

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe Section 212 is mostly about what would commonly be called pimping -- third party offences (procuring, living on the avails of prostitution, etc.). Escort agency operators, and I believe even their employees such as drivers and office workers, can be charged under this section, although I don't think the escorts and customers are violating this section if they are involved only in outcalls.

Incalls are a different matter, since anyone working there can be charged, under Section 210, as an inmate of a common bawdy-house, and anyone else there "without lawful excuse" can be charged as a found-in. And they don't necessarily have to catch you in the act of performing or receiving a sex act -- your mere presence can be enough for LE to charge you.

 

[M1A]

I think the "criminal code" needs to be revised, because it obviously does not reflect the reality of issue.

 

[Hollybaby]

I think the "criminal code" needs to be revised, because it obviously does not reflect the reality of issue.

Definately. We should all have the legal right to decide what to do with our own bodies, and where.

 

[StewieDarlin]

Incalls are a different matter, since anyone working there can be charged, under Section 210, as an inmate of a common bawdy-house, and anyone else there "without lawful excuse" can be charged as a found-in. And they don't necessarily have to catch you in the act of performing or receiving a sex act -- your mere presence can be enough for LE to charge you.

I think it would be very hard for them to do that even if they caught you in the "act". How could they prove that the "act" is what was contracted for and not the person's time. Having sex between two consenting adults in the privacy of ones home is not against the law and they would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

...How could they prove that the "act" is what was contracted for and not the person's time...

They don't have to prove the specific individuals charged as inmates and found-ins were involved in prostitution. Those are just the ones unlucky enough to be in the place when the cops show up to make the arrests.

But that only happens after the police have enough evidence to prove the place is being used for prostitution, and is therefore a common bawdy-house. It can take months for them to get the evidence through witnesses and undercover visits. See this article about a Winnipeg incall convicted as a bawdy-house earlier this year. A cop did actually go there wearing a wire.

The police often plan to make the arrests during a shift change, so they can charge as many SPs as possible, and maybe also charge the ones driving them to the bawdy-house under Section 211.

The inmates and found-ins are summary charges, which I think means they can't be convicted unless the main case against the keeper(s) is successfully prosecuted.

 

[StewieDarlin]

I think I was on a different page from what you were talking about. I was speaking (as an example only) of an indy at her incall not an agency or a micro.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

...The onus would be on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the place was being "kept or occupied" for no other purpose (or motive) than prostitution, such as a main place of residence, or storage,..

I'm not a lawyer either, but I know they don't have to prove the bawdy-house was used only for prostitution and nothing else.

I'm not sure where this myth comes from that a single independent SP incall is either legal or somehow 'less illegal' than MPs or multiple-SP incalls. Apart from being untrue, working alone isn't necessarily the safest way to operate.

Police may not be eager to do all the work it would take to bust a lone incall SP, but that doesn't mean it could never happen. If they receive a complaint, they can be obligated to act. And the complaint could come from anyone -- a nosey neighbour, another SP who thinks she is losing customers to competition, a nutbar client or his pissed off wife...

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

No. Maybe you're thinking of the court cases in the 1970s that caused the old law on public soliciting to be changed?

Someone may have been charged and acquitted for some reason, but the common bawdy-house law hasn't been changed or overturned by any court decision. It's right in the definition in the Criminal Code -- "one or more". It applies to the whole country.

The "common" in the term "common bawdy-house" implies being used more than once. It does not mean that it has to be used by more than one prostitute.

Just because police may not be diligently investigating every possible incall, does not mean they are legal. You might go 130km/h on your way to work every day for ten years and not get a ticket, but that doesn't mean it's legal. All incalls, regardless of how many SPs are using them, are illegal because they violate Section 210 of the Criminal Code.