OLYMPIC ???? companionship service and rates increase?

[HB40]

You might as well dig a little deeper and post your so-called proof, if it truly exists you should have no problem "exposing" it to all. Calling other people stupid, I guess, is your way of feeling superior and smarter than everyone else. If you were smarter, you would see the dripping sarcasm and flagrant nose-thumbing directed your way.
Apparently you have a finely developed sense of humour, in fact many of your posts are meant to be "funny", isn't that right?

Checkmate....you play Chess don't you Krustee.

 

[Krustee]

Who cares what you claim now you "intended" to say. You didn't say that, you were wrong, and now you are trying to backpedal and defend yourself by attacking anyone who points it out.

Let's look again at what I said, shall we?

Just a note here, selling sexual services is not completely "legal".

More like the laws are not enforced here, thus the trade is relatively worry free.

What does "legal" mean?

Legal

1. Permitted by law; lawful: "Such acts are not legal."
2. In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations.
3. One that is in accord with certain rules or laws.

Prostitution is legal in Canada.
It is legal to have sex for money as long as the seller is over 18.

The thing that causes the person who engages in sex for sale to commit an offense is that you cannot do so legally.

Confusing?

Read this:

Despite the fact that prostitution is not illegal in Canada, activities closely related to the profession are penalized (i.e. procuring, keeping a bawdy-house, communicating). This results in the infamous "Catch 22" situation, where prostitutes face a good news-bad news scenario: prostitution is legal, but it is illegal to practice it.

The government's and the legal system's inability to clearly define where prostitution can take place facilitates the further victimization of women by forcing them to practice their chosen profession on the street under less than optimal conditions. Moreover society as a whole is partly responsible for young women choosing prostitution as a career. Also, the incompetence of the law forces the police to be in a position were they have to make the laws.

In the words of an authority on the subject, John Lowman, in Canada "the legality of prostitution is rhetorical at best."


THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF PROSTITUTION

A. THE DEFINITION OF PROSTITUTION

Arriving at a workable definition of what is prostitution is very difficult, since not even the government can agree on what exactly constitutes the offence. Prostitution is the exchange of sexual favours for money or other material goods, devoid of any emotional involvement.

Although prostitution has never been illegal in Canada, many of the peripheral activities intimately related with it are so penalized. Communicating for the purposes of prostitution, soliciting, keeping a common bawdy house, procuring, and living off the avails of prostitution are some examples of the type of activities that are criminalized according to the legal system.


B. PROSTITUTION LAWS AS THEY STAND

Procuring

The purpose of the "procuring" and "living on the avails" provisions in the Criminal Code is to hinder third parties from making a profit from the prostitution of others. This includes directing potential customers to the services of a prostitute, and living fully or partly off the earnings of a prostitute. In most large cities, people in the service industry such as taxi drivers, bell-hops, bartenders, and hotel clerks tend to supplement their incomes by procuring (Gomme, 1993: 301).

Pimps are people who actively seek out another person to prostitute for them. In exchange for this, pimps are supposed to perform certain activities for their prostitute: administer protection from the police, customers and other prostitutes; provide a residence; and recruit customers for "their women" (Gomme, 1993: 301).

Although not a great number of women enter the profession as a result of manipulation by pimps, several alleged to have been "managed" by a pimp at one point in their careers. According to John Lowman very few prostitutes who have been pimped have anything positive to say about the experience; other research, however, shows that some women develop meaningful relationships with these men, (procurers are almost always men, except in the case of madams; and hustlers or male prostitutes are rarely pimped). In some cases the person who acts as a pimp is the prostitute's significant other (i.e. husband, boyfriend, etc). This relationship is often characterized by the moral support, comfort and assurance that is provided by the man.

Laws regarding procurers are just as ambiguous as are laws regarding prostitution in general. According to what the law states, any person "who lives wholly or partly on the avails of prostitution" is guilty of a summary conviction offence, which entails a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $1000.

Problems arise as a result of the discrepancies between the way prostitutes and the law define pimps. For a prostitute a pimp is someone who "turns out" another person to work for him. This is another area where prostitutes are in conflict with the law; these women are not allowed to have a significant other. A prostitute from Toronto voices her frustration; "according to this law I'm not allowed to have a boyfriend because any man who is habitually in my company is defined as a pimp. We want the procuring laws removed. We [prostitutes] demand the right to have lovers" (Good Girls Bad Girls, 1987: 102; Lowman, 1992: 55-6). Noteworthy is that not many people are prosecuted under this offence.

Soliciting

The solicitation law was enacted in 1972, and it was designed to deal with all the aspects of prostitution that the Vagrancy C provision ignored. Section 195.1 read:

Every person who solicits any person in a public place for the purpose of prostitution is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This section of the Criminal Code sought to punish an overt act, solicitation, but what was meant by solicitation was not described. The solicitation law attempted to address the issue of public nuisance that prostitution causes. Preceding the solicitation law, the extent of what the police had to prove when prosecuting an individual, was that a prostitute had offered her sexual services in a public place. After the controversial 1978 Hutt decision, however, to make a conviction the police had to prove that the prostitute had been "pressing and persistent" when offering her services to a potential client (CIR, 1994: 2-3; Lowman, 1992: 65). The flagrant failure of this law was due predominantly to the encumbrance that it caused law enforcing agents. For this reason, some will argue that prostitution spread unchecked across Canadian cities because if the prostitute circumvented the necessary "persistence", she could ply her trade uninterrupted.

Positive aspects of the soliciting law are, a) it expanded police power by permitting the prosecution of male prostitutes and transvestites, b) police could no-longer make the arrest of a recognized street prostitute merely because she did not appear to be busy (Lowman, 1992: 65).

Communicating

The Communicating law was established in December 1985. Its principal purpose was to reduce the visibility of prostitution, thus reducing the nuisance aspect of the trade. Section 213 of the Criminal Code now read:

Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle, (b) impedes the free flow of pedestrians or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicate or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

A "public place" includes any place to which the public have right of access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.

An important aspect of the communicating law is that for the first time in the history of prostitution laws in Canada, the Criminal Code included customers "under the purview of the law". Thus rendering johns vulnerable to prosecution.

Even though the latter has been an improvement in Canadian legislation with reference to prostitution laws, section 213 has had little if any, positive effect on the trade or the people who practiced it. Amid the negative aspects that have surfaced after the law came into being is a dramatic increase in the murder rate among prostitutes throughout the province of British Columbia. Furthermore, this law still does not indicate where prostitution can take place legally (Lowman, 1997: 8; Duchesne, 1997:2).

Bawdy-Houses Offences

The laws regarding common bawdy-houses are aimed at those people who own or manage such places. Since keeping a common bawdy-house is an indictable offence, the maximum penalty for persons convicted on this count is two years in jail. Penalties for other people involved, (i.e. customers and prostitutes) are not as severe; the other participants would be guilty of summary offences. Section a 197 provides a definition of the terms "place, " "prostitute," and "keeper" (Lowman, 1992: 64).

Since World War II, the places which have been involved in common bawdy-house offences are the residences of the prostitutes, "trick pads" (a location used exclusively for the servicing of a customer), and, most frequently, hotel rooms (Lowman, 1995: 338). The police are not required to prove that the place is used frequently, the simple "general reputation" is enough to demonstrate that acts of prostitution occur regularly.

Places such as massage parlours escape being prosecuted under the bawdy-house laws because the customer pays for a massage; anything that happens after that is agreed upon between two consenting adults. Any payment that the masseuse receives is, theoretically, without the knowledge of the proprietor and/or manager. Despite their sly modus operandi, several massage parlours have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law according to the this section of the Code (Lowman, 1992: 80).


The "Catch 22" Situation

When it comes to street prostitution the law is not only ambiguous, but it is also overtly unfair. In Canada it is legal for a woman to sell her body, but it is not legal for her to attempt to find any customers. Also prostitution is the only criminal offence involving two consenting adults, where in most cases, only the female is arrested ("Anywhere But Here", 1992).

The definition of "place" in the bawdy-house laws, for instance, is so broad that it is almost impossible to conceive a location where a prostitute could ply her trade on a regular basis, without violating the law. As Russell indicates, this section of the Code includes virtually any place:

If a parking lot frequented by four prostitutes is a common bawdy-house, and a 5000 square-foot circus tent in which group sex took place is also a common bawdy-house, then what place or establishment is beyond the scope of (this) section (Lowman, 1992: 80)

If the government wishes to rid society of the nuisance created by prostitution, it will have to either, define a place where prostitutes and their clients can meet and carry out their agreement, or make prostitution illegal.

http://web.viu.ca/crim/Student/Sturdy.htm

 

[Thatotherguy]

I am well awaqre of what I wrote.
I said it was not completely legal.
The operative word here being completely.

Which is completely false. Selling sexual services is completely legal. It's all of the activity surrounding the actual sale that isn't completely legal. Is that spelled out clearly enough for you? What you wrote was false. End of story. It's not like you wrote it ambiguously or anything. Your statement was one which could only be taken to mean one thing, and that one thing is simply not true. Obviously I knew exactly what you meant, but that doesn't make what you actually said true.

Just because you fail to grasp what I intended does not mean I am obligated to write my commentary differently.

Well, when your commentary means something completely different from what you claim it to mean... Come on Krustee, you're not too stupid to understand that what you said is false, you're just too stubborn to admit that you phrased it completely wrong.

The sale of sex is not illegal, however, there are a myriad of catch 22 laws that make it nearly impossible to transact that sale without breaking one of those laws.

Now that I have stated it such that a 3rd grader could understand, is my original statement a little more clear?

No shit Sherlock, but it still doesn't make your statement true. If you had said that the selling of sexual services is effectively illegal, that would have been true, since it's virtually impossible to do without breaking the law. The fact remains, however, that the sale itself is completely legal.

Grow up and admit that you fucked up that statement.

 

[Krustee]

Who cares about the side laws that make the activity more difficult -- it has nothing to do with what you actually said.
Everyone already knows about these; they are questioning what you meant when you posted because that contradicts the facts. That is why you are being questioned on that and that alone.

It has everything to do with my statement FO!

Your inability to grasp the concept of contextual communication is a clear indication of your Intelligence Quotient.

context
  [kon-tekst]
–noun

1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Why did I NOT say;

Just a note here, selling sexual services is not "legal".

Would that not have been much easier to write if I intended to say that prostitution was against the law?

Why was that pesky little "completely" word used then???

Furthermore, I would dare say there is a large contingent of SP's & a majority of non-SP's who do NOT know about the laws relating to prostitution.

So on two counts here FO, you are yet again -
WRONG!!!

You still have failed to answer the question, inspite of increasing the rhetoric, name calling, deliberately misleading statements, and trying to save pathetic comments. Everyone can see what you wrote; it was either deliberately misleading or a deliberate lie. If it wasn't what you intended to say, oh well, too late.

Oh, I intended to say it FO!

If for no other reason than to make that minuscule mind of yours begin to burn, I fully intended to say it exactly as I wrote it.

Seriously FO, I enjoy pushing your buttons!


Your futile & naive attempts to have a battle of wits with me is very entertaining!

And when your minions join in & attempt assist you -
it's almost like teasing a bunch of kids on the short bus!


I should get you kids some shirts made with this on em:

You might as well dig a little deeper and post your so-called proof, if it truly exists you should have no problem "exposing" it to all. Calling other people stupid, I guess, is your way of feeling superior and smarter than everyone else. If you were smarter, you would see the dripping sarcasm and flagrant nose-thumbing directed your way. Apparently you have a finely developed sense of humour, in fact many of your posts are meant to be "funny", isn't that right?

I posted an excellent site of info above.

I call em as I see em FO.

I offered to be nice, you go your way & I mine.
All you had to do is not attempt to jump on me for everything I post.

I do not attack you on everything you post.

You wanna play in the big kids playground? - you better be ready to get some sand in your face.

If you start pushing the other kids around you might run into one who pushes back.

Have fun & play nice!

Oh, that's right. You don't post reviews. Or, the few you did were so offensive that the community at large rose up against you. (Oh, and got you banned?) Hmm, that's saying a lot when considering this is perb and negative reviews are considered a-okay.

Please - post a link of the review that got me banned.
I would really like to see it.

No, no reviews, you just make sweeping generalizations about all sps and call it fact because you've seen so so many, and many of them are your closest and dearest friends, but in spite of that you prefer to paint all escorts and sex workers as drug-addicted uneducated non-contributing members of society, including this little community.

I have seen many SP's & I have no compunction posting my opinion about SP's & the sex trade in general.

Hey, how about you & I get it on sometime & then I can review you?

Same shit, different day eh?

.

Actually today is some different shit.

Checkmate....you play Chess don't you Krustee.

Just how exactly, did FO play me there HB???

 

[wilde]

Actually today is some different shit.

I have said it before and I will say it again, go finish high school so you won't come up with any more of these atrocious sentences.

.

 

[FortunateOne]

Please - post a link of the review that got me banned.
I would really like to see it.

Your complaint was that the offended sp had it pulled, so pretty hard to do, no? Silly little man, you think I need to find links and use the quote feature to remember what has been said in past posts?

Now, numerous people have pointed out the error in your statement, so now numerous people are being called names. Very school yard bully of you, big boy.

I think we have proven in the past that my IQ is bigger than your IQ, lol. After all, the comma is no stranger to me!

All you had to do is not attempt to jump on me for everything I post.

I do not attack you on everything you post.

Really? Yet you quote and reply to every statement, whereas I simply stop reading your posts and reply to the most ludicrous ones. Your feeble attempts to make me look stupid fail when so many people pop in to point out the flaws in your "proof", right?

The fact that you can't see these flaws, and make such lame efforts to support them, is what makes you ridiculous.

 

[Annalise Lane]

Canadian Prostitution Laws


SECTION 210, The Criminal Code
This law males it an offense to:
a) "Keep" a brothel (or manage one, own one, ...).
b) Work in a brothel.
c) Be found in a brothel (this is what brothel customers are
usually charged with).
d) Rent or lease space to someone who plans to use the space as a
brothel. If a person renting or leasing space in Canada is convicted
of keeping a brothel in the rented space, the landlord is obligated by
law to evict said person. Since most Canadian brothels (using the
legal definition) are in fact the homes of the working prostitutes,
they stand to lose their homes if they are renters -- and convicted.

SECTION 211, The Criminal Code
This law makes it an offense to knowingly take, offer to take, or
direct someone to a brothel.

SECTION 212, The Criminal Code
This law makes it an offense to:
a) Procure or solicit a person to have illicit sex with another person.
b) Entice someone who is not a prostitute to enter a brothel for
the purpose of prostitution.
c) Hide someone in a brothel.
d) Procure someone to become a prostitute.
e) Convince someone to leave their residence and become a
"frequenter" of a brothel.
f) Direct or take a new arrival to Canada to a brothel.
g) Procure a person to leave Canada to become a prostitute.
h) Exercise control over someone for the purpose of prostitution
(commonly used against pimps, also used against escort service owners,
managers, and phone operators).
i) Drug someone (which includes getting someone drunk) to enable
another person to have sex with the person who has been drugged.
j) Live wholly or partially on the avails (profits) of prostitution
(commonly used against pimps, often used against husbands, lovers,
boyfriends, etc.). Evidence that someone is "habitually in the
company" of a prostitute, or lives in a brothel, is, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person in question lives
on the avails of prostitution.

SECTION 213, The Criminal Code
This law makes it an offense to solicit or "communicate" for the
purpose of prostitution in a public place. Communicate can mean virtually
anything; a wink, a nod, a smile, even conversation. "Public place"
includes any place that the public has access to, either by right or
invitation (streets, parks, hotel lobbies, bars ...). For the purpose
of this law a public place includes "any motor vehicle located in a
public place (like a street), or in any place open to public view (such
as a parking lot or a trick's driveway)."

It's perfectly legal for a pro to see a client in a hotel room, or the
client's home or other personal space. It's also legal for pros to
advertise in magazines and newspapers -- magazines and newspapers are not considered public so whores can legally advertise in the press. There
is no need for a customer to use euphemisms or codes when speaking to a
pro over the phone. Telephones are not considered public places, so you
can be as open as you want.

Another law often used against both prostitutes and their clients is
Section 173 of our Criminal Code -- our indecent act law. This law makes
it an offense to commit an indecent act in a public place in the presence
of one or more people, or to commit an indecent act in any place with the
intent to insult or offend another person. Indecency is not defined in
our Criminal Code, so Canadian judges have the power to determine what
is indecent on an individual case bases.
A judge may not consider two lovers fucking on a beach to be indecent
but the same judge may think that a whore fucking her date in a car is
indecent, and convict both the pro and the date.


2001

the highlighted portion should be of interest to you, and answer the question I was seeking.

 

[Annalise Lane]

B. PROSTITUTION LAWS AS THEY STAND
Procuring
The purpose of the "procuring" and "living on the avails" provisions in the Criminal Code is to hinder third parties from making a profit from the prostitution of others. This includes directing potential customers to the services of a prostitute, and living fully or partly off the earnings of a prostitute. In most large cities, people in the service industry such as taxi drivers, bell-hops, bartenders, and hotel clerks tend to supplement their incomes by procuring (Gomme, 1993: 301).

Pimps are people who actively seek out another person to prostitute for them. In exchange for this, pimps are supposed to perform certain activities for their prostitute: administer protection from the police, customers and other prostitutes; provide a residence; and recruit customers for "their women" (Gomme, 1993: 301).

Although not a great number of women enter the profession as a result of manipulation by pimps, several alleged to have been "managed" by a pimp at one point in their careers. According to John Lowman very few prostitutes who have been pimped have anything positive to say about the experience; other research, however, shows that some women develop meaningful relationships with these men, (procurers are almost always men, except in the case of madams; and hustlers or male prostitutes are rarely pimped). In some cases the person who acts as a pimp is the prostitute's significant other (i.e. husband, boyfriend, etc). This relationship is often characterized by the moral support, comfort and assurance that is provided by the man.

Laws regarding procurers are just as ambiguous as are laws regarding prostitution in general. According to what the law states, any person "who lives wholly or partly on the avails of prostitution" is guilty of a summary conviction offence, which entails a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $1000.

Problems arise as a result of the discrepancies between the way prostitutes and the law define pimps. For a prostitute a pimp is someone who "turns out" another person to work for him. This is another area where prostitutes are in conflict with the law; these women are not allowed to have a significant other. A prostitute from Toronto voices her frustration; "according to this law I'm not allowed to have a boyfriend because any man who is habitually in my company is defined as a pimp. We want the procuring laws removed. We [prostitutes] demand the right to have lovers" (Good Girls Bad Girls, 1987: 102; Lowman, 1992: 55-6). Noteworthy is that not many people are prosecuted under this offence.

I have said it many times that anyone gaining a better lifestyle due to a prostitutes earnings can be subject to conviction under the Federal Laws, but rarely are convicted, ie: boyfriends, husbands, room-mates, which is the only 'catch 22' that could be construde fro the current laws of Canada. Living off the Avails has always been directed to >>> pimps, MP owners, agencies, and SW pimps have at one time or another have been in the spot light with charges.

BUT us girls NOT being able to live off of our earnings ?? Seriously ??

SO YES, please show us uneducated woman whom choose to fuck for a living where this 'Catch 22' law is. <<< that is a direct question !!

 

[HB40]

Just how exactly, did FO play me there HB???

Well, she beats you hands down in a battle of wits, you haven't yet had an intelligent or convincing rebuttal.
And she shows the irony of your satire, you are actually funny....but we're laughing at you, not with you.

 

[Krustee]

I have said it before and I will say it again, go finish high school so you won't come up with any more of these atrocious sentences.

.

You're right - I am really just 13 years old & I shouldn't really be on this board.

But it's been fun playin witcha!

Your complaint was that the offended sp had it pulled, so pretty hard to do, no? Silly little man, you think I need to find links and use the quote feature to remember what has been said in past posts?

Now, numerous people have pointed out the error in your statement, so now numerous people are being called names. Very school yard bully of you, big boy.

I think we have proven in the past that my IQ is bigger than your IQ, lol. After all, the comma is no stranger to me!

Really? Yet you quote and reply to every statement, whereas I simply stop reading your posts and reply to the most ludicrous ones. Your feeble attempts to make me look stupid fail when so many people pop in to point out the flaws in your "proof", right?

The fact that you can't see these flaws, and make such lame efforts to support them, is what makes you ridiculous.

I'm sorry FO after reading your above heartfelt commentary it was like an epiphany!

You're right - I was wrong.

I have been wrong for so long, please forgive me.

And one other thing -
Can we hook up sometime?

(I like masculine women)

 

[VANCOUVER~EROTIC]

seems like the wind have not change........ yet

all this is really interesting.
Some journalist or some funny smart have called today and introduce them self like a journalist and ask my receptionist about how we do our work around the law.

we have answer to him, we provide companionship service only.

companionship to answer krustee is this legal ?

 

[HB40]

I have been wrong for so long, please forgive me.

Oh yeah, I forgot sympathy....some of us feel sorry for you too Krustee.

 

[wilde]

You're right - I am really just 13 years old & I shouldn't really be on this board.

The scary part is that you are not 13.

.

 

[Krustee]

I have said it many times that anyone gaining a better lifestyle due to a prostitutes earnings can be subject to conviction under the Federal Laws, but rarely are convicted, ie: boyfriends, husbands, room-mates, which is the only 'catch 22' that could be construde fro the current laws of Canada. Living off the Avails has always been directed to >>> pimps, MP owners, agencies, and SW pimps have at one time or another have been in the spot light with charges.

BUT us girls NOT being able to live off of our earnings ?? Seriously ??

SO YES, please show us uneducated woman whom choose to fuck for a living where this 'Catch 22' law is. <<< that is a direct question !!

The below references give the Criminal Code section & an explanation of intent as well as enforceability.

Federal Law
A. Jurisdiction

Parliament has primary jurisdiction over prostitution-related concerns in Canada through its criminal law power. Federal jurisdiction over the criminal law is derived from s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that the powers of Parliament include: “[t]he Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.”
B. Criminal Code(16)

Prostitution-related offences are contained primarily within the Criminal Code. Sections 210 to 213 of the Code outline offences related to keeping or using common bawdy-houses, transporting a person to a bawdy-house, procuring, and prostitution. Essentially, although consensual sex between two adults for consideration is not in itself punishable in law, other events surrounding the act of prostitution are prohibited. The interpretation and application of each of these provisions will be dealt with in turn.

1. Bawdy-houses

Section 210 of the Criminal Code contains the bawdy-house offence:

s. 210(1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) Every one who

1. is an inmate of a common bawdy-house,
2. is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or
3. as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.(17)

Section 197(1) defines the relevant terms. “Common bawdy-house” means a place that is kept or occupied, or resorted to by one or more persons, for the purpose of prostitution or to practise acts of indecency. Courts have interpreted this to mean that any defined space is capable of being a bawdy-house, from a hotel, to a house, to a parking lot – provided that there is frequent or habitual use of it for the purposes of prostitution or for the practice of acts of indecency,(18) and the premises are controlled or managed by prostitutes or individuals with a right or interest in that space.(19) Further, the test used to determine whether an act is indecent is a community standard of tolerance.(20) Within this framework, the interpretation of indecency will depend on context, taking into account factors such as consent, the composition of any audience and the level of privacy of the room, community reputation of the place, and any harm caused.(21) For example, if the room is private, or if there is no actual physical contact between a client and an entertainer, then an act is less likely to be labelled “indecent.”(22)

Courts have also held that to be found guilty of keeping a common bawdy-house a person must have some degree of control over the care and management of the premises and must participate to some extent in the illicit activities involved there – although this does not necessarily mean participating in sexual acts.(23) A prostitute may even be found guilty of keeping a common bawdy-house where he or she has used his or her own residence alone for the purposes of prostitution.(24)

Alternatively, to be found guilty of being an “inmate” of a bawdy-house, a person must be a resident or a regular occupant of the premises. To be guilty of being “found in” a bawdy-house, a person must have no lawful excuse for his or her presence and must have been explicitly found there by the police at the time of raid.(25) Finally, courts have said that to be guilty of knowingly permitting the premises to be used for the purposes of a common bawdy house, a person must have actual control of the place and must have either acquiesced to or encouraged its use for that purpose.(26)

2. Procurement

The offence of procurement is contained in s. 212 and carries the toughest penalty for prostitution-related offences under the Criminal Code, with potential imprisonment of up to 14 years for offences relating to minors.

Section 212(1) lists various methods of procurement and states that a person committing such crimes is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. However, ss. 212(2) and (2.1) expand this offence for situations dealing with minors. Under s. 212(2), a person who lives on the avails of prostitution of a minor is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. Section 212(2.1) provides a further offence punishable by imprisonment for up to 14 years, but not less than 5 years, for a person who lives on the avails of prostitution of a minor and who, for the purposes of profit, aids, abets, counsels or compels the minor to engage in prostitution, and who uses, threatens to use or attempts to use violence, intimidation or coercion against the minor. Finally, s. 212(4) states that every person who obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a minor, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

Section 212(3) relates to the evidence necessary for a charge under s. 212. Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution.

Procurement essentially refers to an act of persuasion. This accordingly excludes situations where the person whose sexual services are being sold is already or subsequently becomes a prostitute of his or her own free will.(27) Procurement encompasses the following situations:

* requiring or attempting to require an employee to have sexual intercourse with a client;(28)
* enticing someone who is not a prostitute into becoming a prostitute or into a bawdy-house for the purposes of illicit sexual intercourse or prostitution;
* procuring a person to enter or leave Canada for the purposes of prostitution;
* controlling or influencing another person for gain in order to facilitate prostitution;(29)
* intoxicating a person for the purpose of enabling anyone to have sexual intercourse with the intoxicated person; and
* living on the avails of prostitution.

On this last point, there is a rebuttable presumption that a person who lives with a prostitute, is in the habitual company of a prostitute, or lives in a common bawdy-house, lives on the avails of prostitution.(30) This offence connotes a form of parasitic living on a prostitute’s earnings, where an accused must have directly received all or part of the prostitute’s proceeds from prostitution.(31)

As noted above, the penalty for procurement offences is raised when the prostitute is under 18, creating an additional offence for situations in which the procurer lives on the avails of a child involved in prostitution and uses threats or violence to compel such prostitution.

Most importantly, s. 212(4) states that it is an offence to obtain or to communicate for the purpose of obtaining the sexual services of any person under 18 for consideration. Thus, solicitation of a prostitute who is a minor is always illegal.(32) It is no defence to say that the accused believed the complainant was 18 years old.
3. Offences in Relation to Prostitution

Offences related to the act of prostitution itself revolve around the issue of solicitation and the use of public space. These offences pertain to:

s. 213(1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view

1. stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,
2. impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
3. stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) In this section, “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.

The actual act of exchanging sexual gratification for consideration is not in itself illegal. However, it is illegal to engage in prostitution or to obtain the sexual services of a prostitute in a public place. This restriction encompasses stopping or attempting to stop a motor vehicle, and communicating or attempting to communicate in any manner for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute.

Section 197(1) defines “public place” as any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied. This includes any place that is open to public view, including a car, even one in motion, that is on a public street.(33) However, a plainclothes police officer’s car is not considered a public place.(34)

2. Community Safety

Manitoba, Yukon, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan have adopted another approach to dealing with prostitution at the provincial/territorial level, with their respective Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Acts.(57) These laws allow for the closure of buildings and properties in response to safety and prostitution-related concerns. A person may make a complaint to the Director of Public Safety, stating his or her belief that a property is being habitually used for activities related to prostitution.(58) After investigation, the Director can attempt to resolve the matter through informal action (such as a letter) or may ask the court to make a community safety order.(59) In the latter case, if the court is satisfied that circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference that the property is being used for prostitution-related activities and that the community is adversely affected by those activities, it may make an order prohibiting anyone from causing or permitting those prostitution-related activities, and requiring the person in charge of the property to do everything reasonably possible to prevent those activities. In addition, the court can make an order to vacate the property, to terminate a lease agreement, or to temporarily close the property.(60) Thus the province, through the court, effectively has the power to close down properties relating to prostitution that cause a harm to local communities. Newfoundland has a similar law, which has yet to be proclaimed in force.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0330-e.htm#relatedservices

Continued

 

[Krustee]

continued from above

Here is an article which addresses this issue:

Bawdy of evidence
No safe workplace
Elizabeth Bromstein

Say you’re standing on the street with some sex for sale. Someone, maybe a scary guy with a personality problem, pulls up beside you and asks, “How much for a blow job?” and you reply, “Twenty bucks.” (You’re not expensive – you’re working on the street.) Bam! That’s a violation of the law.

But it’s also illegal to retail your services from the safety of your home. And if you want to hire anyone for security reasons, that’s a no-no, too, because then they’d be “living off the avails.”

You can’t work outside. You can’t work inside. You can’t work safely. But other than all that, prostitution’s perfectly legal. Go on, sell all the sex you want.

The only possible beginning of a remedy for this legal mess comes up October 6, when the Superior Court of Ontario hears Osgoode law professor Alan Young’s constitutional challenge of the sex trade laws. “You don’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to know that the law shouldn’t put you in harm’s way,” he tells me.

But will the judges see it this way? It’s certainly been a long haul, this campaign to make the sex trade safer. As recently as 2006, a House of Commons report detailed the dangerous effects of keeping the sale of sex criminalized, and the mass murder of BC prostitutes caused a roar of indignation. Nonetheless, not much has changed and we’re still living, it seems, with the ghosts of 19th-century woman-despising prudery.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=169559

Prior to reading these many articles & commentary from attorneys on the matter I interpreted "Living off the avails of prostitution" as any person making a living from it.

I still believe this can be argued as anyone who earns a living from prostitution, but I have not heard of a prostitute actually being prosecuted.

Therefore, on the living off the avails of prostitution section of the criminal code a hooker is not likely to be charged.

I interpreted it as stated in this paragraph:

Laws regarding procurers are just as ambiguous as are laws regarding prostitution in general. According to what the law states, any person "who lives wholly or partly on the avails of prostitution" is guilty of a summary conviction offence, which entails a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $1000.
http://web.viu.ca/crim/Student/Sturdy.htm

So, believe it or not, I stand corrected.

A prostitute may earn an income from selling sex.

However, not reporting all of that income & not filing your taxes with CRA, is illegal!

Cheers!

 

[nd1]

An Epiphany At Long Last!!!

A prostitute may earn an income from selling sex.

However, not reporting all of that income & not filing your taxes with CRA, is illegal!

Instead of hijacking a rather meaningful thread with what you "believe" and "interpret to mean", as well as all that useless name-calling and circular logic, that "a prostitute may earn an income from selling sex" could have easily been reached as a foregone conclusion if you just read what the Criminal Code says:

"Section 212(1) Every one who... (j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person... is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years." (emphasis mine)

I still believe this can be argued as anyone who earns a living from prostitution, but I have not heard of a prostitute actually being prosecuted.

Therefore, on the living off the avails of prostitution section of the criminal code a hooker is not likely to be charged.

As the law is written, unless said "hooker" suffers from multiple-personality disorder, it is indeed "not likely" -- nay, make it "impossible" -- to be charged for "living off the avails".

As to whether an SP, or for that matter, anyone, is in violation of the Tax Code by failing to file and pay is another matter altogether.

Can we get back to the OP's questions now?

 

[nd1]

Ignorance is Bliss, However...

... Ignorance is generally NOT a defence.

Are you sure you want to have me point this out to you?

Once I post it, all who read it are legally informed, indictable & therefore subject to prosecution under the law. (you cannot claim ignorance)

Once an act comes into effect by obtaining royal assent and is published in the Canada Gazette, you are considered to have been officially notified of it and cannot plead ignorance. Whether you "post it" or not is so so so inconsequential.

Sorry to burst your bubble of bliss...

 

[Annalise Lane]

Prior to reading these many articles & commentary from attorneys on the matter I interpreted "Living off the avails of prostitution" as any person making a living from it.

I still believe this can be argued as anyone who earns a living from prostitution, but I have not heard of a prostitute actually being prosecuted.

Therefore, on the living off the avails of prostitution section of the criminal code a hooker is not likely to be charged.

I interpreted it as stated in this paragraph:


So, believe it or not, I stand corrected.

A prostitute may earn an income from selling sex.

However, not reporting all of that income & not filing your taxes with CRA, is illegal!

Cheers!

Law is subjective at best, which is why I believe there are precedence set all the time. Words can be scud(spelling) to suit the current case and interpreted to suit the argument.

As for escorts not filing their taxes, they are different departments and rarely communicate with each other. However, I believe once a lady is licenced she is subject to file sharing between the two offices. I have heard agency/mp/ladies who have been audited because of this very thing. A few ladies in Edmonton had to prove they in fact didn't make XX amount said by the CRA, and because few actually keep records of their appointments, where on the hook for a taxable income in excess of 120k.

Krustee - these are different topics, the ladder one seems to be the bee in the bonnet of a lot of the participants on this board. Sadly, you all can go on and on about CRA, but the reality is, until the ladies see value in paying their taxes all your whining wont make this happen.

Humans rarely see the future, and only live for today, ie: all the debt we consumers have.

Thank you for acknowledging you where wrong in that we ladies can in fact live off our earnings.

 

[TheGuy]

The use of the word "Olympic" in the title of this thread is a copyright infringement - better watch out for VANOC!

I hope the local girls triple their prices and get some of that cash flowing around. Smart girls will increase their prices for tourists but maintain pricing for regulars.