It is now legal for working girls to operate from their homes in Van

[Lolita]

SPs have to be licensed in order to comply with the new zoning laws. Having licenses brings a whole new world of hurt for them (taxes, etc) and it just increases and invites the chances of police busts and/or searches. And from my understanding, licenses are strictly for outcall use. No exceptions. Licensed social escorts did have to work for a licensend escort agencies, police clearly state that in the interview, independents wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court.

 

[Groo39]

Licensed social escorts did have to work for a licensend escort agencies, police clearly state that in the interview, independents wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court.

Why couldn't an independant get an agency license?

Seriously -- as far as I know there is nothing to prevent anyone from creating a corp to get a business number, if that's what is required for an agency license. It typically costs $1500-2500, depending on whether you go through an accountant or a lawyer. There are cheaper options as well, but they don't provide a seperate legal entity like a corp does.

 

[Saffire]

Canadian Law....

In addition to the communicating law, “bawdy houses” are prohibited (Criminal Code sections 210 and 211), as are procuring and living on the avails of prostitution of another person (section 212). Procuring and living on the avails are indictable offences carrying terms of up to ten years in prison (and in the cases of a person under 18, up to 14 years in prison). A common bawdy house is a place kept, occupied or used by at least one person for the purposes of prostitution or indecent acts. “Keeping” a bawdy house (section 210(1)) is an indictable offence liable to up to two years in prison. Being “found in” or an “inmate” of a bawdy house (Criminal Code sections 210(2) and 211) are summary offences carrying a maximum term of six months in prison and/or a $2000 fine (being a summary offence, the communicating law carries the same maximum penalties).

The living on the avails, procuring and bawdy house laws date back to Canada’s first criminal code, as did the vagrancy provision which prohibited street prostitution. The vagrancy law was replaced in 1972 with the soliciting law which, in turn, was replaced by the communicating law.

plenty more info....

 

[sirlickheralot]

(since they allow cities to have money to spend on programs and it is the *province* that pays the police bills)
If you really think that Vancouver city council holds enough power to prevent the application of federal law, I have a bridge to sell you....

PiL

Since When? The police department is paid for out of the general fund, 74% of which comes from municipal taxes. Only a small portion of the cities budget comes from provincial funding. The priorities, goals and budget of the police department are set out by a municipal police board, on which the mayor is board chair. Their budget is then sent to council for final approval.

Technically you are right the police are supposed to enforce all laws equally but if you believe that this happens in reality then perhaps it should be me selling you the bridge. If it is decided that certain prostitution related crimes aren't a priority the police board can just reallocate funds to other areas.

 

[sirlickheralot]

I'll retract my previous statement

The councillors in Vancouver have proven themselves to be as brainless and spinless as 99.99% of the other politicians out there(I don't want to make generalizations so I won't say all politicians).

Vancouver Sun Story

 

[PiL]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sheesh

Yes, but therein lies the gray area -- how often does it have to be used to be "continuous"? Remember prostitution is legal. That implies that it has to be legal for the session to occur somewhere.

The gray area you allude to does not exist....any time over *once* qualifies as a bawdy house. This has stuck in many cases throughout Canada over the years and would not offer any defense at this point. So while technically you could get away with that absolute first time, it is insignificantly minor considering the need to keep moving for that first time over and over.

PiL

 

[PiL]

Legal or not, what landlord is going to allow in-calls in their building? Every lease I have ever signed states specifically that the dwelling cannot be used as a place of business. Even if there was an office building that would allow in-calls, providing it complies with the zoning laws, what if two or more SP's used that building? Does it not then become a bawdy house?

Assuming you're talking an apartment building, each apartment space would be considered as a separate "bawdy house" if more than one SP lived there. If not, then everyone in the building would be charged with "being found in a common bawdy house" as any john would be (and that is just silly). A bawdy house is not defined by the number of people working so much as the frequency of work taking place.

Also, regardless of any zoning issues, landlords can be charged with "living off the avails of prostitution" if they knowing allow a bawdy house to exist in a unit for which they collect money. Jail time is more of a deterrent than any zoning infraction.

PiL

 

[PiL]

Since When? The police department is paid for out of the general fund, 74% of which comes from municipal taxes. Only a small portion of the cities budget comes from provincial funding.

Unlike the clear distinction between federal and provincial spheres of influence, municipalities exist only to operate provincial matters at the local level. All municipalities are given power to collect taxes by their respective province but it would only take one quick session in provincial parliament to take that away. Municipal taxes are collected by the city in the name of the province and allowed to budget such funds in the same fashion. If the province were ever to have serious problems with how a municipality is running things, they have the power to step in and take more direct authority over all aspects at the municipal level.

Like I said, ultimately the province has final say in all cities. Cities only have as much power as they are allowed to have (which really isn't that much).

PiL

 

[PiL]

Scariest quote "At the end of the day, we need to see people safe in their houses and in their businesses." As if an escort business is automatically going to attract the same drive-by shootings as grow ops!

I suspect that has more with how the original issue was presented in the press. As I read it, it alluded to "workers getting off the streets and into their apartments", which already takes with it the negative aspects of streetwalkers and all other street crime (drugs, gangs, etc). From this point of view, it actually *can* be a safety issue because even *I* wouldn't want a streetwalker living next door to me with the pimp and dealers visiting at odd hours.

Now, if the original issue had been worded "letting those who already work from home do so legally", it would imply that almost anyone could be doing it and as such it might secretly be your favourite neighbour. This makes things far less scary to the common person and would've helped if they had been serious in the first place (which I'm not convinced of since they failed to make this important distinction).

In the end, how you word things becomes very important with touchy issues.

PiL