Possible ad of underage escort - how is this best addressed?

[normisanas]

Don't be absurd. No one is going to be charged for determining that the girl is in fact under age and walking away.

That section of the code would only be used if you believed, or had reason to believe, that she was under age and continued to solicit anyway.

Oh really. Read the CC section carefully that I posted earlier. If still in doubt, read the Parliament Of Canada article on the matter http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0330-e.htm . If you still don't believe it, there's a ton of articles on the 'Net that describe the steady progression of changes to the law that makes it easier and easier to prosecute for such offenses, ultimately leading to the Crown not having to prove that the offender believed it or not - what he thinks is completely immaterial and that's the state of the law as it stands today. They desired to create as wide a fence post around the whole matter such that if she even looks remotely possibly underage, you wouldn't even dare ask.

Now if you're still too lazy to read it yourself or find this incredulous, I've copied the most relevant part from that link here:
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. - from the Parliament Of Canada publication listed above.

 

[Ratbert_2008]

Although I would have just called Crime Stoppers from a pay phone

I can't remember the last time I saw a pay phone.

 

[V1Rotate]

I'm with Tugela on this one. The Crown has one hell of a tough job providing the burden of proof. I didn't see her, I didn't continue after knowing the fact she was underage, I'm reporting what I feel to be fair, and the end result is her ad is removed and life goes on. I think at the end of the day any prosecution of the matter would be harsher to those who pimp her and exploit her thus taking advantage of her over a guy who text her out of curiousity. Get real.

I just hope that if she truly is underage, she isn't doing so against her will or by force. If this happened to be the case hopefully this thread and our efforts have stopped it. That was the point, and the only reason I'm speaking up.

 

[susi]

Aren't you guys a little "nuts"? I mean, look at the photos she posted on YOUR site. If she's underage, that's considered child porn! She doesn't have to be an actual child for it to be child porn, wake the fuck up!

You better talk to some lawyers about how you operate if you want to stay in business and not in jail.

we will report any under age person working in the sex industry without fear of reprecussions as a result of our long standing relationship with the VPD and our confidence in their respect for our intentions- to create a safe place for people to advertse or to purchse sexual services.

when faced with an apparent case of human trafficking- we did the same. we reported. the younge woman was rescued. we did not face any reprecussions for reporting.

 

[Ratbert_2008]

Did you not hear about the two underage girls in Calgary who were recently in the news? They were NOT doing it on their own free will.

Do you have a link?

 

[Tugela]

Oh really. Read the CC section carefully that I posted earlier. If still in doubt, read the Parliament Of Canada article on the matter http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0330-e.htm . If you still don't believe it, there's a ton of articles on the 'Net that describe the steady progression of changes to the law that makes it easier and easier to prosecute for such offenses, ultimately leading to the Crown not having to prove that the offender believed it or not - what he thinks is completely immaterial and that's the state of the law as it stands today. They desired to create as wide a fence post around the whole matter such that if she even looks remotely possibly underage, you wouldn't even dare ask.

Now if you're still too lazy to read it yourself or find this incredulous, I've copied the most relevant part from that link here:
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. - from the Parliament Of Canada publication listed above.

And if you read the code it refers to an act that happens or is intended to happen. In this case the communication was terminated after reasonable attempts to determine age, so there was no intent to proceed. Therefore no offence, and NO CHARGE.

No one is going to be charged if they undertake reasonable steps to determine age. A complaint has to be made before an investigation and a charge, and the last two are not going to happen under those circumstances, since no offence has happened.

Keep in mind that engaging in sexual activity under false pretences where the other party would reasonably not participate if they were aware of the truth is considered sexual assault in Canada. Technically these girls who present themselves as old enough could be charged with rape, especially if they used fake ID for that purpose. I think there is a scam going around where underage girls get a guy into their room, then whip out their ID and threaten to call the cops if he doesn't hand over a bunch of cash. They think they are immune, but they are not.

 

[Tugela]

Did you not hear about the two underage girls in Calgary who were recently in the news? They were NOT doing it on their own free will.

Your assumptions are what their pimps count on.

No one doubts that some are not doing it of their own free will, the same applies to adults for that matter.

But it is a stretch to say that none are doing it of their own free will.

Most of these girls (if not all) are living in marginal environments where they have access to very few resources. The ability to make relatively vast amounts of money easily is going to be attractive to them, and that will be the motivation in most cases. Because what they are doing is totally illegal, there are going to be lots of people exploiting that to take a cut. That does not imply they are doing it against their will however. The board has had this discussion before, with trafficking for example. That is something that is blatantly and completely illegal, but usually happens with the collusion of the "victims". The motivations and behaviours in trafficking are largely reflected in underaged prostitution.

 

[Tugela]

Did I say you did?

 

[Ratbert_2008]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/04/2...girls-allegedly-forced-to-work-as-prostitutes

Thank you.

 

[normisanas]

And if you read the code it refers to an act that happens or is intended to happen. In this case the communication was terminated after reasonable attempts to determine age, so there was no intent to proceed. Therefore no offence, and NO CHARGE.

No one is going to be charged if they undertake reasonable steps to determine age. A complaint has to be made before an investigation and a charge, and the last two are not going to happen under those circumstances, since no offence has happened.

Keep in mind that engaging in sexual activity under false pretences where the other party would reasonably not participate if they were aware of the truth is considered sexual assault in Canada. Technically these girls who present themselves as old enough could be charged with rape, especially if they used fake ID for that purpose. I think there is a scam going around where underage girls get a guy into their room, then whip out their ID and threaten to call the cops if he doesn't hand over a bunch of cash. They think they are immune, but they are not.

You've got to be kidding. Here's what Section 212(4) says:
"... it is an offence to obtain or to communicate for the purpose of obtaining the sexual services of any person under 18"

Now maybe you use a different version of the English language than what is used in legal documents, but it is very clear:
"to communicate for the purpose of obtaining". It means if you ask a girl if she is over 18, even if you honestly want her to prove her age using government issued ID, is to communicate for the purpose of obtaining; and THAT is the fence post put around the entire issue that I was speaking of that the government had created to make it easier to prosecute for such offences - so that it is not necessary for the Crown to prove whatever the hell your intention was or what was going on in your head to nail you for underage prostitution.

Obviously you haven't done your research in the many many articles leading up to this amendment to the Criminal Code. You really should - because it is a great disservice to divulge advice as you have to citizens and tell that it is perfectly legal to try to find out her age before asking her "how much": you're counselling people to break the law.

 

[superhappyfun]

I believe the words of the Honourable Mr. Justice Harris in the case of R. v. Chiang, are applicable here.

The phrase “communicates ... for the purpose of”, is to be interpreted as meaning “with the intent to” obtain sexual services. This is the meaning attached by the courts to the same phrase found in s. 213 of the Criminal Code. R. v. Chiang, 2010 BCSC 906, (paragraph 68)

In the above mentioned case Mr. Chiang was convicted of an offense under 212(4), but not on the basis of his phone/text conversation (see para 78). It was only after meeting an undercover officer and being told that the prostitute was 16, and apparently not having a problem with that, continuing to communicate with the officer, essentially reassuring her that he would not be rough with the girl, that Mr. Chiang's intention was established as being to obtain the sexual services of an underage SP.

 

[Tugela]

Quit your fearmongering. That is not what the law means or how it is applied in court.

If you have sex with someone under one of the age limits, ignorance is not a defence but if you can demonstrate active fraud it is. The law places the burden of proof on the accused, rather than the prosecution in that situation, so it is harder to defend.

When it comes to communicating the court would operate on the principle of reasonable belief. If there is no reason to believe she is under the age limit (for example, in an anonymous e-mail communication where age is never mentioned) you won't be charged and certainly won't be convicted. Doubly so if you have taken the effort to establish her age and not continued if she turned out to be too young. It would only be applied if there was reasonable grounds to believe she was underage (such as her stating that fact, or using a photo that clearly shows that fact) and you still continued anyway, THEN you would not be able to claim the defence of ignorance. The main application of the communication part of the law is the street trade, where negotiations take place face to face, and is intended to address public solicitation.

 

[susi]

she did not produce her ID so we don't know for sure. i did reort to police, so i will call and follow to so i can report back here....

 

[normisanas]

Quit your fearmongering. That is not what the law means or how it is applied in court.

If you have sex with someone under one of the age limits, ignorance is not a defence but if you can demonstrate active fraud it is. The law places the burden of proof on the accused, rather than the prosecution in that situation, so it is harder to defend.

When it comes to communicating the court would operate on the principle of reasonable belief. If there is no reason to believe she is under the age limit (for example, in an anonymous e-mail communication where age is never mentioned) you won't be charged and certainly won't be convicted. Doubly so if you have taken the effort to establish her age and not continued if she turned out to be too young. It would only be applied if there was reasonable grounds to believe she was underage (such as her stating that fact, or using a photo that clearly shows that fact) and you still continued anyway, THEN you would not be able to claim the defence of ignorance. The main application of the communication part of the law is the street trade, where negotiations take place face to face, and is intended to address public solicitation.

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.
That's from the PARLIAMENT OF CANADA publication, http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0330-e.htm

What you state, of how it is applied that you may try to determine within reasonable grounds, such as government ID, that she is of legal age, is no longer applicable. That's old. What I've been saying is that they've changed the law to make it easier to prosecute. So in other words, if you got her government issued ID and it was fraudulent, in the past you had reasonable grounds to believe it and could be used as a defense. Today that is no longer the case.

I believe the words of the Honourable Mr. Justice Harris in the case of R. v. Chiang, are applicable here.

The phrase “communicates ... for the purpose of”, is to be interpreted as meaning “with the intent to” obtain sexual services. This is the meaning attached by the courts to the same phrase found in s. 213 of the Criminal Code. R. v. Chiang, 2010 BCSC 906, (paragraph 68)
In the above mentioned case Mr. Chiang was convicted of an offense under 212(4), but not on the basis of his phone/text conversation (see para 78). It was only after meeting an undercover officer and being told that the prostitute was 16, and apparently not having a problem with that, continuing to communicate with the officer, essentially reassuring her that he would not be rough with the girl, that Mr. Chiang's intention was established as being to obtain the sexual services of an underage SP.

Well it is only applicable in that it was a clear-cut case of Chiang being told she was underage and he attempting to do the transaction after being told that. But if you read the link you presented, you will find:
[52]That purpose remains central to the current version of s. 212(4), but Parliament has chosen to recast the offence where there is in fact no obtaining of sexual services. Rather than focus on “attempting to obtain sexual services”, the prohibition is now against “communicating for the purpose of obtaining those services”. Attempting to obtain those sexual services remains an offence by virtue of s. 24 of the Criminal Code. The new wording in s. 212(4) focuses on communication and the purpose of communication. It is an effort to attack a mischief at its inception by preventing shopping around and exploring the possibility of procuring sexual services from those under age.
So to attack a "mischief at its inception" is to "prevent shopping around and exploring the possibility of procuring... under age" is very clear to me. In other words, 212 (4) makes it illegal for you to communicate with someone who looks obviously young, very obviously underage, in an escort ad, even if in part of that exploring you determined her legal - because to do so under the context of an escort ad, is to be "shopping around".
Unfortunately in the case against Chiang, the full extreme application of 212 (4) was unnecessary.

 

[google_123]

she did not produce her ID so we don't know for sure. i did reort to police, so i will call and follow to so i can report back here....

so she didn't reply back?

Interesting scenario here, and the fact that I noticed the ad (now gone), in the late evening last night, it looks like she's using a different IP.

 

[susi]

really? i will check it out....and no as far as i know, there was no reply back.

 

[superhappyfun]

Well it is only applicable in that it was a clear-cut case of Chiang being told she was underage and he attempting to do the transaction after being told that.

[...]

Actually Chiang was not found to have "attempted" to go through with the transaction, but his further discussion with the undercover officer after being told the girl's notional age allowed the judge to make the inference that his purpose was to obtain the sexual services of a person under 18. And the record shows that Chiang's conviction was indeed for an offense under s. 212(4).

[52]That purpose remains central to the current version of s. 212(4), but Parliament has chosen to recast the offence where there is in fact no obtaining of sexual services. Rather than focus on “attempting to obtain sexual services”, the prohibition is now against “communicating for the purpose of obtaining those services”. Attempting to obtain those sexual services remains an offence by virtue of s. 24 of the Criminal Code. The new wording in s. 212(4) focuses on communication and the purpose of communication. It is an effort to attack a mischief at its inception by preventing shopping around and exploring the possibility of procuring sexual services from those under age.
So to attack a "mischief at its inception" is to "prevent shopping around and exploring the possibility of procuring... under age" is very clear to me. In other words, 212 (4) makes it illegal for you to communicate with someone who looks obviously young, very obviously underage, in an escort ad, even if in part of that exploring you determined her legal - because to do so under the context of an escort ad, is to be "shopping around".
Unfortunately in the case against Chiang, the full extreme application of 212 (4) was unnecessary.

Whether such communication is illegal depends on whether the trier of fact can make a reasonable inference as to the purpose of that communication. If you said, for example, "hey baby I want to book your services but first I need to determine your age" then that would probably be "for the purpose of..." but if you merely said "how old are you?" then I can't see any reasonable trier of fact convicting someone on that basis.

 

[Tugela]

The way it would be applied in court is that you would have to show intent. If you called an anonymous person, who turned out to be underage, and you had no way of know or even guessing that, no court is going to convict you. If you asked the age, were given something below the minimum number, then walked away, you would not have committed an offence because you behaved in a reasonable manner and demonstrated no intent. No one gets charged for a crime when there is no reasonable way for them to know they are committing a crime, the law does not work that way.

People who get charged under this section are going to be told (most likely by an undercover officer as part of a sting) that the girl is 17, THEN if they continued to negotiate they would be arrested. That is the way it is used. You would have to be TOLD that the girl is underage, either in her add or verbally. If there is no evidence of that a conviction would be very unlikely, a judge would simply throw the charge out.

Normisanas, let me highlight the part of your quote you are missing:

"It is an effort to attack a mischief at its inception by preventing shopping around and exploring the possibility of procuring sexual services from those under age."

To be charged, that bolded bit is the part you would have to do, and there would have to be evidence that you did that. It would be an active behaviour on your part, and simply calling an escort does not rise to that standard.

 

[PlayfulAlex]

What about prior acts with underage ? Would this apply with prior suspicion , complaint, or charge ? These guys really like to get into trouble once the first charge is laid it seems they can't stay out of the eye from the law they always fuck up unfortunately our laws are not strong enough to protect children from active perpetrators .

I found the show on Dateline fascinating... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator

 

[Cami Parker]

Not necessarily true... I know lots of girls that arrived at The Bunny Ranch in Nevada on their 18th birthdays (the legal age there) I don't agree.... I always felt a bit of pity for them, especially the ones still in high school that don't even know what they want from life yet.... But Nevada Law says its ok.... I think 21 is more acceptable.... More self directed.... But who am I to say?