Help on interpretation of the law.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I agree with Megan. I think that this thread has gone far beyond its purpose and for too long. I asked for a simple clarification on one of the clauses related to incalls that I wasn't clear enough and it was clearly answered by WIT in the first page and then it turned into a rather hostile (in a few posts) debate on prostitution laws, which as I indicated in my earlier post is very very unlikely to be enforced unless the factors that Megan mentioned above exist. The OP used to have the power to close a thread in the past. I wish it was still there in this case.

[scribbles 6031]

Actually, it's nice that people get an equal opportunity to express themselves about a topic. When you start a post you open a topic for discussion for anyone who reads or participates, not simply for your own edification.

 

Obviously the laws about prostitution are a contentious issue, and I'm pretty sure one person saying that they are more/less legal/a criminal because of the choices they make as a provider or consumer just make the situation more contentious. Under the current laws, everyone is guilty. That's the problem with the laws. The rest is semantics in an effort to justify your actions and make yourself feel better. Otherwise, we'd all be posting under our real names.

 

@Elizabeth, thanks for finding that link. I knew I had read that somewhere but couldn't remember where.

 

Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515a using Tapatalk

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Yes I open a topic and the topic was interpretation of the clause "Found in" a bawdy house. Any diversion is thread hijacking (I am equally guilty but at least I know when to end it LOL) and hostile posts or (especially false) comments about any member's personal life without her or his consent is against cerb rules, respectfully.

[scribbles 6031]

Then it's a good thing we have an impartial moderator to defer to when situations get out of hand, threads are hijacked, or insults are thrown around. I didn't read the entire thread, so I didn't see the personal attack you speak of, but if you're offended or concerned I would suggest you should discuss it with the proper authority.

 

As for the original topic, I'd be interested in seeing a reference to an actual case where a client was arrested for hosting SPs in his/her home or hotel room. I'm sure it's very unlikely to happen, but the wording of the laws is fishy enough I can see how they could be bent in that direction.

 

Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515a using Tapatalk

[Capital Hunter 18263]

. I didn't read the entire thread, so I didn't see the personal attack you speak of,

 

Please quote me where I spoke of personal attack in this thread???.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... In theory, a date could be charged with keeping a bawdy-house if he has pros over regularly. This means that you could be charged with being an inmate or found-in if you were caught in his home. This rarely, if ever, happens.

 

I am not a lawyer, but, as usual, I can't resist a bit of fun. This issue keeps getting dragged up, but no one has ever presented, and I have never found, any legal ruling about it (which of course doesn't necessarily mean a ruling doesn't exist. I'm just a googler, like everyone else). If anyone knows about such charges ever being laid, let alone prosecuted successfully, it would be interesting to have confirmation and details. It would be sort of like seeing someone struck by lightening ... twice.

 

Just as a thought-experiment, and unless or until concrete evidence to the contrary surfaces, the question might be framed:

 

Based on a layman's understanding of the language of the Criminal Code - can (all else beng equal) a client's home fall under the definition of being "kept or occupied", or "resorted to", "for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency"?

 

Whose bawdy house would it be? My own logic follows along these lines:

 

Is it the client's bawdy house?

 

Does the client "keep" or "occupy" his home or hotel room? Yes. But:

Is the client's purpose to be a prostitute? No. Rather, the client's purpose is to be the client of a prostitute.

 

So to my way of thinking, it isn't the client's bawdy house.

 

Is it the sex-worker's bawdy house?

 

Is the sex worker's purpose to be a prostitute? Yes. But:

Does the sex worker "keep" or "occupy" the client's home or hotel room? No.

 

So to my way of thinking, it isn't the sex worker's bawdy house, either.

 

But but:

 

Does the sex worker "resort to" the client's home or hotel room, after all? There's no easy cut and dried answer that I can see. The best I can do is dance around the question a couple of times:

 

If one individual sex worker visits one particular client's venue, then, whatever the interpretation of "resort to" might be, what are the possibilities of LE (even if they conceivably took a notion to be interested in such a situation) ever gathering effective evidence, based on whatever the juridical standard might in practice be, that there was "frequent or habitual use" by that sex worker of that venue for the purposes of prostitution? The traditional method of gathering evidence of multiple-clients wouldn't be available - since there's only one client here.

 

If, on the other hand, visits by one or more other sex workers are made to the client's venue at other times, how can their visits, the existence of which the sex worker in question would not even be aware of, be held up as evidence against the sex worker in question? What a strange sort of bawdy house that would be.

 

But whichever way this "maybe" crumbles, it just plain flies in the face of common sense (to my way of thinking) to propose that a sex worker could be held to be an inmate of a bawdy house for which (at least per my logic, above) there can't possibly be a keeper (and not merely that the keeper can't be identified). An interesting paradox, and it would be great entertainment to read what sort of legal arguments might have been put forth in a case, if any there has ever been, in which such a seemingly counter-intuitive charge has been laid.

 

According to Justice Himel in Bedford v Canada:

 

"[119] ... 'out-call,' where prostitutes meet clients at different locations such as in hotel rooms or clients' homes.... [397] ... there is no blanket prohibition on indoor prostitution, as prostitutes can legally work out-call in indoor locations ..."

 

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html

 

While Himel's statement is hardly definitive on the current question, I would observe that, in context, Himel is saying that the choice is available to sex workers to work legally via out-call. If a client's home could somehow fall under the definition of common bawdy house (were the client to be entertaining on an habitual basis), then that choice would not be available to the sex worker in any practical way.

 

So much for my fun little esoteric thought-experiment. As I say, I have no definitive answer as to whether this theoretical question has ever crossed-over to the real world.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

For interest sake, when I was at the court of appeals, the lawyers of the intervenors referred to Pickton's farm as a "bawdy house" that should have been shut down on bawdy house charges.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

As opposed to a mere charnel house that should have been shut down on mass-murder charges? That's intervenors for you.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

As opposed to a mere charnel house that should have been shut down on mass-murder charges? That's intervenors for you.

Yup. I guess I don't have to point out which intervenor group it was..... lol.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

Following your argument, WiT, the client's premises could be considered to be a bawdy house in that it is a place where immoral acts take place on a habitual basis. That doesn't mean that prostitutes who go there would necessarily be chargeable if they didn't know that it was a bawdy house. They go there, legally, to provide a legal service. The problem relates solely to the owner/occupant of the premises and his habitual activities.

 

I don't know of anyone being charged for this, either. I imagine that someone would have to be causing a lot of trouble for neighbours before anyone would intervene.

 

I remember hearing about the argument that the Picton farm qualified as a bawdy house, too. Picton only brought prostitutes to the place and, as the families of missing women have been testifying yesterday and today at the inquiry in Vancouver, sex workers in the Downtown Eastside knew about the farm years before Picton was arrested.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Following your argument, WiT, the client's premises could be considered to be a bawdy house in that it is a place where immoral acts take place on a habitual basis ...

 

Based on R. v. Labaye 3 S.C.R. 728, 2005 SCC 80, (2005), which ruled that, in order for an act to be found to have been indecent, harm must have been done, I believe "indecency" no longer enters into the bawdy-house equation in this sense unless either:

 

- the acts are not mutually consented to by the participants, or

- the acts are observable by third parties who might find the conduct inappropriate.

 

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc80/2005scc80.html

[fortunateone 156618]

Based on R. v. Labaye 3 S.C.R. 728, 2005 SCC 80, (2005), which ruled that, in order for an act to be found to have been indecent, harm must have been done, I believe "indecency" no longer enters into the bawdy-house equation in this sense unless either:

 

- the acts are not mutually consented to by the participants, or

- the acts are observable by third parties who might find the conduct inappropriate.

 

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc80/2005scc80.html

 

 

Like many laws, and legal definitions, i don't think it really matters if it makes sense or not. The main thing is that in theory, it is a perfectly valid interpretation. In law, indy sps who offer incalls (whether private home based or hotel room) risk the charges of being in or running one. In fact, i can't think of any case where they are actually charged (speaking ONLY of indy single occupant set ups, nothing else compares). In law, as was interpreted by more than one source, fwiw, a client who sees numerous sps habitually or frequently (and lets face it, for someone to see sps more than a couple of times a year at their home is frequent), can certainly be open to facing the same charges.

 

Reality and common sense, of course, tells us that no one is really going to be investigated for this, just as no indy single sp operating an incall is going to be investigated and charged with this. It is possible that LE will be contacted about either the client with the frequent visitors or the single indy sp with her frequent visitors and ask them what's going on, are they ok, is everything safe and ok with them. But to expend finances, resources and time on that kind of thing, the court would throw it out just to teach them a lesson not to waste their time.

 

With the bawdy house law the way it is, you can be charged with being "found in" as in for no other purpose than to engage in prostitution (or enjoy the services of one who is engaging). When an mp is raided, this is the standard charge. I think its pretty obvious that a house or apartment is unlikely to be raided, but the fact remains, the same activities are taking place.

 

I made the point for a reason. I did not expect the personal attacks from the OP for posting information on topic.

 

Additional Comments:

You are correct but the criminal act is not committed by the client in this case, but rather by agency and/or driver (living off the avails of prostitution). None of the prostitution laws in Canada make seeing an escort at client house a criminal act by client (provided phones or emails have been used in arranging the date/appointment).

 

 

 

Actually Malika renting a hotel room by client is OUTCALL and so is seeing escorts in client's private residence. But yes seeing an escort in a hotel room rented by the SP is incall (nobody said it is outcall).

 

 

 

Thank you for the link. It is not unexpected that if a client uses his place like a bawdy house it is possible that it could be regarded by law as a bawdy house. The definition of regularly in the article written by someone based on her/his interpretation of the law (it is not a clause in the law itself) is subjective and debated and hard to prove however, my personal example would be inviting a group of people (hobbyists and SPs) to have a group sex, or even may be duos and trios consecutively (one client and several SPs at the same time) or using home as a swingers club, especially is money is made by owner.......I don't believe having an SP over, every week or month would fit the definition of regularly.

 

Regularly can certainly be defined as "every week or month". If it is not rarely, or once a year, it is regular. Sps determine they have regular clients if they show up once a week or once a month.

 

Of course its hard to prove, that's my point. Its also hard to prove a single indy sp offering incall option in a safe, discrete and private location is going to be a danger to you, or, in fact, any more illegal than you having regular visitors come to see you weekly. Both situations fall, technically, into the same category. You can't skirt around it by saying it needs you to have more people in your home at one time to qualify. Indy single sps having their own incall don't have several people there at the same time. The people come to visit one at a time, over a period of time. So, technically its the same thing as a client who sees many many sps visiting him in his own location over a period of time.

 

I am stressing this info because there is sometimes a lot of misleading types of comments on this topic. It doesn't do anyone any good to make them feel edgy, nervous or paranoid going into an sp incall. This is completely unnecessary, and really detrimental to the entire experience. When or if a multitude of sps who offer this start suddenly being targeted by LE with trumped up charges, then many be concerned. But frequenting any SC, with its rumours of 'extra" services going on in the private areas, now that is something people should be wary of. Same with some mps. If I wanted to ensure that I was never going to be opening myself to the possibility of being interrupted in the middle of sexy time, the last places you'll find me is in an SC or mp.

 

Additional Comments:

. And Please don't make personal or misleading comments fortunateone!!!! And who said so many SPs come and visit my house!!!! Less than one guest per weekend (on average) is not considered so many in my book!! Not to mention that you commented (falsely) on my personal life!!!.

 

.......

 

 

SA, I would submit that you can ask anyone here, but most clients do not see up to 50 visitors in their home in a year. This puts you into the 'so many' category, in my opiniion and no doubt many others. If others interpret info provided in a certain way, you can't really start 'attacking' us for that interpretation. It really sets an unpleasant tone, no one here was telling you what you can or cannot post or flat out call you a liar..

[Former Moderator 2840]

This thread is closed. The original question was answered and discussed. It's has now become an argument and the tone is becoming hostile.