Possible legal ramifications for giving advice/assisting a woman who wants to escort

[Lady Companion]

This may be an odd questions, but I am not really familiar with how C-36 will play out, and want to ensure I don't get into trouble by trying to be helpful and ensure the safety of women.

In the last week I have had a huge increase in the number of ladies, either new to the industry, or wanting to enter the industry, contact me for advice. I'm used to getting a few inquires a month, but I'm now getting a few a day, which seems really peculiar.

I firmly believe that women in this industry should be safe and feel empowered by their choices - and have historically assisted in a manner to ensure that those who were going to enter the industry did so in a way that was most beneficial for them.

If someone just has a few questions regarding safety, screening, boundaries etc. I am always happy to assist. However, if somebody is looking for more of a mentor, or has much more comprehensive and time consuming questions, I have always required compensation for my time consulting (which always gets donated to one of the various charitable projects I have going on).

I am just wondering if anybody has any thoughts on whether this could create issues with the new laws (or old ones, and I have just been lucky). My question would be for both giving advice/thoughts for free, or for requiring a consulting fee for more in depth questions.

NOTE: This is simply consulting. None of these ladies 'work' for me in any way. I never take a cut of anything they earn. I am simply charging for my time and sharing the tips and tricks I have gleaned over the years.

Main areas of discussion are:

How to stay safe. Ensuring you have safety contacts who know where you are at all times, how to screen, listening to your gut, working from places that have good security systems in the lobby etc.

Health: Understanding the potential health risks of each activity, and establishing their own boundaries and comfort level once they have the correct information. Dangers of hand lotion, lipstick, lip gloss, sun screen etc. if it comes into contact with latex etc. Using enough (and the right kind) of lube to ensure breakage doesn't happen etc.

Empowerment: Realizing that they should never do anything for money that they wouldn't do for free. Setting their limits, and sticking to them. Never compromising their personal standards. Realizing that declining appointments is their right, and that they really should be selective enough that they decline far more than they accept. Only seeing people who's company they genuinely enjoy, and always giving 100% to the suitors they do choose ~ because they love what they do so much that that is the only acceptable way of doing things. Realizing that it is ok to say no....even though they are being paid. Even if they have agreed to do something. You can always return some or all of the consideration if things don't work out as agreed upon. Reclaiming your health or dignity can be much more challenging.

Proper marketing: Being open and honest about who you are, what you are looking for, and what you provide. Best places to advertise for different demographics. Putting 10-20% of income earned back into marketing until you have a base of special friends, using analytics etc. to monitor what is working and what isn't. Which places bring in the demographic you are most interested in etc.

Business skills: Getting your business licence. Paying your GST. Making sure your taxes are done properly (chartered accountant), knowing what you can and can't write off, getting set up for credit cards etc.

Feel free to PM or email me if you prefer. I really want to continue being of assistance to anybody who needs it, but don't want to compromise myself in doing so. I also don't want to be spending huge amounts of time helping others become fabulous companions if I'm not able to receive some benefit from their end - such as assistance in funding some of my humanitarian projects.

Thank you to everybody for taking the time to read this.

May each day be filled with the love, joy, peace, health, happiness, fun, laughter, value creation, appreciation, gratitude and abundance you deserve!

 

[escapefromstress]

Very good questions you raised here.

I know there's mention of counseling or advising others to participate in the industry somewhere in the Bill, and have been looking for it. All I've found so far is the Technical Paper by the Dept. of Justice - I've been reading under the Material Benefit Offence section. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html


Here's a Legislative Summary of the Bill: http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=E&ls=c36&Parl=41&Ses=2&source=library_prb

 

[clu]

If the money is going to charity anyway, asking them to donate directly rather than the money going through your hands would take the risk away for you, wouldn't it?

 

[Tugela]

I would run this question by your solicitor to have an opinion that you can rely upon. That said, the thrust of the change to 'living off the avails of prostitution' is supposed to allow SPs to hire non-exploitive people to help with their business. One test for non-exploitive would be that the fee for work provided to the SP is the same or comparable to the fee charged to non-sex workers for the same or similar service.

One's time and knowledge has value that one should be able to be compensated for sharing. So talk to your lawyer to best understand the rules of the market place that your consulting business is operating within.

I think that as long as she isn't directly involved in the other SPs business on a day to day basis, and does not collect some sort of regular management fee, then it should be OK. The important thing is to be able to demonstrate that whatever payment has been received is not related to prostitution but rather to an independent service provided (that can be verified) and that the fee is comparable to what it would have been in other business endeavors.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Can give put my trade secrets can I?

do you want to try that one again, angela

 

[yazoo]

I think away got autocorrected to put.

How to stay healthy and safe shouldn't be a trade secret though.

You could make a series of videos and charge for access. Make the first one or two free to showcase the value. Then your market would be the world, not just Vancouver.

 

[westwoody]

Whether you receive any material benefit is irrelevant. Your action may be interpreted as procuring for the purpose. Especially if it is someone new to the business and you refer her to a customer.

Be careful what you write if you communicate by email or text.

Be sure you absolutely trust the girl. Is she going to rat you out if she has a legal problem?

 

[Equity Market investor]

Be careful what you write if you communicate by email or text.

They could be told to register onto Perb and communicate through pm. I think that would be safer?

Lady Companion.....mention Perb to these ladies so that some sort of familiarity is introduced in terms on review boards. They'll still need to develop their own skills and intuition at some point. At least by reading Perb, they will get familiar with reviews, lounge, Ad ad section etc.

 

[escapefromstress]

This thread reminded me of when I first started advertising online. I researched the websites of what I perceived to be the most successful SP's in Vancouver, and decided to emulate Lady Companion's style.

I wrote to tell you what an inspiration you were to me back then and want you to know that you still inspire me today.

:clap2:

 

[uncleg]

A) Being a companion is not illegal. Why would advice free or paid for be illegal ?
B) If a lady contacts an established companion for advice, then I suggest that she has already made the decision to go down this road. How would the possibility of procurement charges possibly fit into that ? It's not like Angel is advertising her services to induce women to enter the business.
C) Be careful, not paranoid.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Instead of guessing, you could read the legislation, I suppose. OP's conduct pretty clearly falls on the wrong side of section 286.2 (1), set out below. The exemption in subsection (4) makes this especially clear.

So OP is committing an indictable offence. Not good. Whether this would ever come to LE's attention is debatable, but she's definitely risking it.


286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsection (1) does not apply to a person who receives the benefit


(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.

Emphasis added.

 

[uncleg]

Instead of guessing, you could read the legislation, I suppose. OP's conduct pretty clearly falls on the wrong side of section 286.2 (1), set out below. The exemption in subsection (4) makes this especially clear.

So OP is committing an indictable offence. Not good. Whether this would ever come to LE's attention is debatable, but she's definitely risking it.


286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsection (1) does not apply to a person who receives the benefit


(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.

Emphasis added.

And how do you consider that the OP is on the wrong side of law, based on what you have quoted ? Everybody seems to have a different version of what the law says, so let's see how you got there.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

And how do you consider that the OP is on the wrong side of law, based on what you have quoted ? Everybody seems to have a different version of what the law says, so let's see how you got there.

Fair enough. I guess clear for me isn't necessarily clear for everyone.

Section 286.2(1) makes it an offence to get a financial benefit when you know that the money came indirectly from someone pooning. That alone is pretty broad and it's arguable that OP's situation is not covered by that language. Maybe.

But then subsection (4) creates exceptions to the offence. Paragraph (d) creates an exception to the offence for making money by providing a service to an SP, even if you don't offer the service to the general public. But the exception has an exclusion: it doesn't apply if you "counsel or encourage" the SP to provide sexual services. That exclusion makes it clear that counselling an SP to provide sexual services is caught by the language of s. 286.2(1).

Did that help?

 

[uncleg]

Fair enough. I guess clear for me isn't necessarily clear for everyone.

Section 286.2(1) makes it an offence to get a financial benefit when you know that the money came indirectly from someone pooning. That alone is pretty broad and it's arguable that OP's situation is not covered by that language. Maybe.

But then subsection (4) creates exceptions to the offence. Paragraph (d) creates an exception to the offence for making money by providing a service to an SP, even if you don't offer the service to the general public. But the exception has an exclusion: it doesn't apply if you "counsel or encourage" the SP to provide sexual services. That exclusion makes it clear that counselling an SP to provide sexual services is caught by the language of s. 286.2(1).

Did that help?

It's not a matter of clear, it's interpretation. It's clear to me she is not in violation of anything, based on my interpretation. It seems that it's clear to you that she is in violation based on your interpretation.

Bill C-36 narrows the scope of the material benefits offence through legislated exceptions which clarify that the offence does not apply if the benefit is received:
- in consideration for a good or service that is offered informally, for example by a person that provides protective or administrative services, provided that the benefit received is proportionate to the value of the good or service provided and the person who provided the service did not encourage, counsel or incite the provision of sexual services.

In my clarity, this says 286.2(1) does not apply. The OP is not encouraging, counselling or inciting the provision of sexual services. She is just providing lessons on being a better companion to people that have already made that decision.

That's my logic for saying she is on the right side of this.

What you didn't answer is, what is your logic for saying she is on the wrong side. Remember we are looking at the same situation and law.

 

[uncleg]

If Angel is going to make available advisory services to the sex worker community, it seems unlikely that law enforcement would be able to take action on these 'indirect' activities when they will already be stretched to address even the most severe C-36 related cases as it is (i.e. human trafficking, minors, etc.).

BD

......based on this, you're saying she's on the wrong side of the law....... However, based on common sense she shouldn't have to worry because the cops don't have the resources to take enforcement action against her kinds of indirect services.

Not exactly an answer to the original question.......nothing like taking the position, go ahead and do it the can't catch you anyway.......until of course they do catch you.