Bridgewater N.S. Bawdy House Arrest

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

South Shore Now reports, 12 Apr 2012:

 

http://www.southshorenow.ca/newsnow/newsnow201257.php

 

Police in Bridgewater say they've shut down a bawdy house.

 

A 30-year-old Halifax woman was arrested Wednesday for allegedly operating a bawdy house and breaching the conditions of an earlier undertaking.

 

Police were releasing few details Thursday, saying charges had not yet been laid.

 

The unidentified woman was released from custody and is scheduled to appear in Bridgewater provincial court on May 30.

 

The investigation involved officers from the Halifax Regional Police vice section and the local street crime unit.

 

 

http://www.bridgewaterpolice.ca/news21.htm

[cometman 35115]

Check out the contact's name. Irony at it's finest.

 

"Media Contact

 

Cst. William Creamer

 

(902) 298-1807

 

(902) 543-2464 "

[drlove 37204]

Check out the contact's name. Irony at it's finest.

 

"Media Contact

 

Cst. William Creamer

 

(902) 298-1807

 

(902) 543-2464 "

 

That's too funny!

[Summer Meadows 1676]

I wonder what LE would think of a "bawdy house" that was outside of town limits? Say a large 5 bedroom house near the country. No neighbours to see or complain...would they still shut it down I wonder? I'm dying to know if they only do busts when people complain. Why else do they let 90% of ladies continue to work? Thoughts?

[dread pirate roberts 4036]

I expect you are correct in thinking it is complaint-driven, Summer. That seems to be police policy for a lot of minor matters, not just this.

[backrubman 64800]

I wonder what LE would think of a "bawdy house" that was outside of town limits? Say a large 5 bedroom house near the country. No neighbours to see or complain...would they still shut it down I wonder? I'm dying to know if they only do busts when people complain. Why else do they let 90% of ladies continue to work? Thoughts?

 

Well this law has been found by not one but two Courts of competent jurisdictions to be a Charter violation. While I agree it remains in full force and effect for another 11 months or so, it does say "charges had not yet been laid.".

 

Personally I can't wait to see what (if any) charges might be laid. Perhaps a disturbing the peace sort of thing, the Crown dare not proceed to prosecute under a law that has been established be in conflict with the Charter, even if it is still in effect. Yes the law is still in "place" but the case can proceed much like the precedent setting case prior and the outcome is a mathematical certainty, so why bother? Maliciousness prosecution? No, good chance the charges (if any) will be reduced to something else.

 

Doubtless they had to do what they had to do. If not, the Crown (with any sense) will just decline to proceed and drop the charge under this law (if it ever gets filed) as the case would be obviously un-winnable.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

As I have pointed out elsewhere, what exactly the legal situation will be as a result of the Ontario Charter appeal is not yet certain. It is not certain when any changes might take place, either. Will the Ontario case be appealed to the Supreme Court, leaving the current law in place during such an appeal - just as happened during the last round of the appeal? Will parliament revise the Bawdy House Law in a way that makes it constitutional, before it lapses? At this point, t's impossible to know. Meanwhile the law stands, not only in Ontario where it was challenged, but in Nova Scotia too. LE will do what they must in each individual situation.

 

And, as is usual in such specific cases, there are likely complicating factors. The press release mentions "breaching the conditions of an earlier undertaking", the contents of which are not stated. Such allegations are usually the easier thing to prove, and may contain the fundamental motivation for the arrest.

[cometman 35115]

I wonder what LE would think of a "bawdy house" that was outside of town limits? Say a large 5 bedroom house near the country. No neighbours to see or complain...would they still shut it down I wonder? I'm dying to know if they only do busts when people complain. Why else do they let 90% of ladies continue to work? Thoughts?

That'd be so cool to have our own "Chicken Ranch" down here. Anyone that knows the area knows there are places that fit Summer's description.

[drlove 37204]

That'd be so cool to have our own "Chicken Ranch" down here. Anyone that knows the area knows there are places that fit Summer's description.

 

HRM had some well known brothels for many years, which were only shut down after public complaints. However, before then LE basically turned a blind eye to them for almost two decades or more.

[backrubman 64800]

As I have pointed out elsewhere, what exactly the legal situation will be as a result of the Ontario Charter appeal is not yet certain. It is not certain when any changes might take place, either. Will the Ontario case be appealed to the Supreme Court, leaving the current law in place during such an appeal - just as happened during the last round of the appeal? Will parliament revise the Bawdy House Law in a way that makes it constitutional, before it lapses? At this point, t's impossible to know. Meanwhile the law stands, not only in Ontario where it was challenged, but in Nova Scotia too...

 

Thanks WIT, who knows what the state of things will be 5 or 10 years from now?

 

I was speaking with a good friend of mine today who is Nova Scotia barrister (with the impressive QC - Queens Council rank) on another matter and also asked about this one :) He relates that in his [unquestionably expert] opinion, he would love nothing better than to take on any prosecutor that would dare pursue a charge using a law that had been found to be a Charter violation even if that law is "technically" still in full force and effect as such a case (if pursued) would have to undeniably steer the same course and end with the same result.

 

HRM had some well known brothels for many years, which were only shut down after public complaints. However, before then LE basically turned a blind eye to them for almost two decades or more.

 

Yes and I have it from reliable sources that those who would play any part in deciding not to turn a blind eye were in fact well known customers :) When this eventually changed, any move to move against the ladies was met with "high ranking" pressure to let them be (again from powerful fans and patrons). Apparently central to this blind eye was the fact that the madame kept records and it was feared they would become a public court record. Oddly, and quite surprisingly when they did finally move against her the seized records were somehow misplaced :)

[drlove 37204]

...the madame kept records and it was feared they would become a public court record. Oddly, and quite surprisingly when they did finally move against her the seized records were somehow misplaced :)

 

Now, why doesn't that surprise me? lol

[Guest p**h*x]

Oddly, and quite surprisingly when they did finally move against her the seized records were somehow misplaced :)

 

LOL, how convenient. awesome.

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

Like the decision in the late nineties in regards of the right of women to be bare breasted in Ontario by the Ontario Court Of Appeal this decision only affected the Province of Ontario; so the appeal courts decision may only apply to the jurisdiction in which it was decided in.

[backrubman 64800]

Like the decision in the late nineties in regards of the right of women to be bare breasted in Ontario by the Ontario Court Of Appeal this decision only affected the Province of Ontario; so the appeal courts decision my only apply to the jurisdiction in which it was decided in.

 

Well, like WIT pointed out, strictly speaking it "applies" nowhere right now as the law remains for 12 months following the Appeal Court decision. That said, this is a Canadian Criminal Code section we are talking about which applies in all provinces. The fact that the decision was reached by the Ontario Court of Appeal matters not. If the law is a Charter problem, it is so everywhere in Canada as it's not a provincial law that was successfully challenged but several provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code itself.

 

As my associate pointed out, a Nova Scotia Court would really have no choice but to reach the same conclusion but it shall never be put before them as it is pointless (the matter has already been decided twice now) and the Crown of course knows this.

 

Of course I'm by no means any authority on the subject, several other members have followed this much more closely but I did take advice from a most impressive and well known member of the bar and his opinion was they aren't going to go there yet again (at the provincial level), Supreme Court of Canada possibly.

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

I agree with you it will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

[backrubman 64800]

I agree with you it will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

Yeah, I don't think we can even be sure of that until it is official. The Supreme Court of Canada is just that so while they can be petitioned to hear a case, my it is my understanding it is completely within their purview to decide to hear it or not. They could choose to ignore it and decline to hear it, they are after all the highest Court in the land so they can't be compelled to do anything, even listen :)

[taloon 1472]

The day is coming when all of this rubbish will come to an end. Who is being protected by these "laws"? An even better question is: who is being hurt?

[fortunateone 156618]

I wonder what LE would think of a "bawdy house" that was outside of town limits? Say a large 5 bedroom house near the country. No neighbours to see or complain...would they still shut it down I wonder? I'm dying to know if they only do busts when people complain. Why else do they let 90% of ladies continue to work? Thoughts?

 

 

 

Well, outside or inside the city limits, the reason charges get laid is because it is illegal cross Canada, not just inside the city limits.

 

Complaints can come from neighbours, disgruntled clients not getting their own way, and/or competing setups. Anything that leads to an investigation taking place. Oddly, I think it is rare that LE just looks at bp ads and starts their own investigating lol.

 

In Van, LE pretty much has a harm reduction policy. It may be illegal to provide incall in hotel room or apartment, but if the alternate is being on the street or dangerous outcalls, they leave incall sps alone. The exception will be a 'shop' in an apartment, 24/7 clients coming and going, 'managers', multiple sps, and multiple clients coming in and out, and the rather ridiculous "going to the lobby to meet clients to escort them up" like no one will notice the same person go downstairds every 15-30 minutes to meet another man to take upstairs.

 

Stuff gets noticed. People think 'drugs' and they don't want that next door to them, just as they don't want loud drunk guys coming and going at all times of the day.

[PoorGuy 1098]

1 person operation? That sounds like an independent SP incall to me. Sucks to have nosy neighbours. Incall SP's are rare enough in the Maritimes as is.

[joji 1573]

Check out the contact's name. Irony at it's finest.

 

"Media Contact

 

Cst. William Creamer

 

(902) 298-1807

 

(902) 543-2464 "

 

Hahahahaha