Prostitution Cases in Vancouver

[Elm]

Prostitution laws are very selectively applied. When I lived in Montreal, I learned only cases involving exploitation were pursued.

I’m curious to know what the situation in Vancouver is. How many criminal cases regarding prostitution are pursued yearly?

Reading through VPD’s guidelines they have the same policy.

 

[Tugela]

Generally speaking, they go after people who engage in egregious behavior, those who breaking other laws beyond simply prostitution (such as extortion, underage girls, trafficking, etc) and those who are a public nuisance (picking up SPs off the street for example).

If you are not engaged in an act of malice and are not making a public nuisance of yourself, police and the courts generally have more pressing matters to attend to.

 

[thodisipagal]

PCEPA 2014 (Bill C-36)'s key amendment to the Criminal Code 1985 was to add the Nordic model to the the prostitution provisions of the Code. The Nordic model added was simply "the ladies can sell peaches but the dudes can't buy them" (ladies can sell sex, but men can't buy it.) Therein lies the irony. How can someone is allowed to sell something when no one is allowed to buy it? I read an analogy to Sen. Mike Duffy's case of accepting $90K check from Harper's then chief of staff Nigel Wright. Duffy was charged for accepting the money as bribe but Wright wasn't even touched for giving bribe.

I digress.

I think because of this irony the cops realize that spending time going after pooners is a waste of time as the prosecutors would have hard time convincing a judge for a conviction. There's plenty of articles that when and if PCEPA is challenged in court, the Supreme Court will come down with similar ruling as the Bedford case of 2013 mainly because the PCEPA amendments make the safety issue worse for sex workers, not better.

I have not heard of one criminal arrest, let alone a court case, on the basis of "procurement" (the new provision).

Last year one pimp was arrested in North Vancouver for "living under the avails of prostitution", forcing underage prostitution, and trafficking (if I remember correctly). But none of these are new provisions in the Criminal Code.

BTW, that VPD guideline predates the Bedford case.

 

[Elm]

PCEPA 2014 (Bill C-36)'s key amendment to the Criminal Code 1985 was to add the Nordic model to the the prostitution provisions of the Code. The Nordic model added was simply "the ladies can sell peaches but the dudes can't buy them" (ladies can sell sex, but men can't buy it.) Therein lies the irony. How can someone is allowed to sell something when no one is allowed to buy it? I read an analogy to Sen. Mike Duffy's case of accepting $90K check from Harper's then chief of staff Nigel Wright. Duffy was charged for accepting the money as bribe but Wright wasn't even touched for giving bribe.

I digress.

I think because of this irony the cops realize that spending time going after pooners is a waste of time as the prosecutors would have hard time convincing a judge for a conviction. There's plenty of articles that when and if PCEPA is challenged in court, the Supreme Court will come down with similar ruling as the Bedford case of 2013 mainly because the PCEPA amendments make the safety issue worse for sex workers, not better.

I have not heard of one criminal arrest, let alone a court case, on the basis of "procurement" (the new provision).

Last year one pimp was arrested in North Vancouver for "living under the avails of prostitution", forcing underage prostitution, and trafficking (if I remember correctly). But none of these are new provisions in the Criminal Code.

BTW, that VPD guideline predates the Bedford case.

This paragraph stood out to me:

"Desperation for money to survive can result in sex workers being forced to accept behaviour from a customer or pimp that otherwise would not be tole
rated. For example, brothel owners or pimps may require their workers to do things that are dangerous or degrading, or charge them “fees” for any number of things, such as the use of supplies or a particular location, leaving the worker with little money or in fact owing money despite working."

The latter half of the last sentence should apply to every operation, right? That's the principle they operate on. Most "independents" are paying for something like this, and reputable establishments are fee based as well. It's not like sps are paid a guaranteed hourly wage.

 

[meaghanmcleodDELETED]

One thing to note, Vancouver or Victoria DID NOT participate in the phase 4 Operation Northern Spotlight late last year, that most major cities participated in. This is where they made appointments with the workers, showed up at their incall with usually 6 uniformed officers (sometimes without women officers), asked a lot of questions, searched their incall, to ensure she was not underage or coerced. Some of the providers were in their 40's, so clearly not under aged. Most of the ladies felt vulnerable as they were in the lingerie, outnumbered, and felt they had to let them in for fear their neighbours would find out.

I'm glad Vancouver and Victoria did not participate. I would rather the police contact me directly, tell me what they want, so I can see them on my terms.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ns/news-nouvelles/releases-communiques/15-10-22-144240-eng.htm