The law

[Bob G]

Could i know more about the law ?

What if a masseuse receive you in her private house....is it against the law ?
If in her price she gives you a hj....is it against the law ?
Is a thai massage against the law ?

Thanks

 

[jplatt39]

A place where people regularly exchange sexual favours for money is a bawdy house. Being found in such a place is a crime in Canada.

s. 197 (1) C.cr of Canada: "'common bawdy-house' means a place that is
(a) kept or occupied, or (b) resorted to by one or more persons for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency;"

s. 210 (2) C.cr of Canada: "Every one who [...] (b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, [...] is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."


So the moral of the story is that legally, it's better to have women come where you are (eg: hotel) than for you to go where they are.

 

[Bro]

Kepler,

So under that statute your own house would be considered a "bawdy house" if it was an outcall masseuse?

 

[XMS]

This is funny... Given Kepler's quote that "A place where people regularly exchange sexual favours for money is a bawdy house", you're assuming he calls SPs so often in his house that it can be classified as a bawdy house?

 

[Patel]

Gentle2her,

Note the use of the word "or" in the statute. As I read that statute, s. 197(1)(b) would make your own house a "bawdy house" if it was resorted to by you and the outcall masseuse even once for the purpose of prostitution. There is no frequency requirement.

 

[Persian Prep :)]

SA,

Note the use of the word "or" between (a) and (b). Statutory subsections are not read in the conjunctive when there is an "or" separating them. If there was an "and", you would be right. But there isn't.

 

[Vivien N]

... what constitutes acts of indecency?

 

[Rob B]

... or are we just doing our part to bolster the economy?

 

[theoneandonlycharlotte]

Me too, I would like to know what is considered as an act of indecency. Sounds a bit like Middle Age Great Inquisition's statement..

 

[xxkristenlynnxx]

No, because the most important test here would be the word purpose. I do not keep my house for the purpose of prostitution, I keep it for living.

On the other hand, I guess that theoretically, if I kept a separate appartment for the single purpose of bringing prostitutes there, that could be a common bawdy house.

The word "resorted to" might seem, at first glance, to imply a wider definition. But this would be incorrect, because:

• The word "common" in common bawdy house necessarily implies some larger amount of traffic than a simple residence.
• More importantly, the french version of the law uses the word "fréquenté", which implies a temporary presence and not that of someone residing there.

It seems to me that the "one or more persons" requirements refers to prostitutes, not clients. IOW: a client bringing multiple prostitutes home is safe, but a prostitute using an appartment alone or with other girls is operating a common bawdy house.

 

[Pompal 09.]

Oh, one last note:

From my reading, the important part of section "b)" (resorted to) is actually that it might criminalise otherwise 'innocent' third parties.

For example, a hotel that is regularly resorted to for the purpose of prostitution.

 

[Marlena C]

Actually, there is: Canada's supreme court has already ruled on this issue and stated that there needs to be "habitual or frequent usage" of the area for the purpose of prostitution. (R. v. Patterson, [1968] S.C.R. 157)

 

[Cameron]

Kepler,

Thanks for that clarification on the case law. Obviously case law fills in the gaps in the statutory text and probably some of the other issues raised by other posters have also been addressed in the case law as well.

As I have said previously on issues like this what the law says is not so important as how it gets enforced in practice. Trust me on this as I have dealth with local police departments here in the USA and they sometimes will enforce laws in ways that one would not expect.

 

[?u??sfloozy]

This was very recently settled by the Supreme Court in 2 cases:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2005/2005scc81/2005scc81.html
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2005/2005scc80/2005scc80.html



"In order to establish indecent criminal conduct, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that two requirements have been met. The first is that by its nature the conduct at issue causes harm or presents a significant risk of harm to individuals or society in a way that undermines or threatens to undermine a value reflected in and thus formally endorsed through the Constitution or similar fundamental laws by (a) confronting members of the public with conduct that significantly interferes with their autonomy and liberty, (b) predisposing others to anti‑social behaviour, or (c) physically or psychologically harming persons involved in the conduct. The categories of harm capable of satisfying the first branch of the inquiry are not closed. The second requirement is that the harm or risk of harm is of a degree that is incompatible with the proper functioning of society. This two‑branch test must be applied objectively and on the basis of evidence. "

 

[Pyros]

Yes, but I would mention two things:

- Common bawdy houses are raided in practice in Quebec (massage parlours, FS clubs, etc.) So you're always better off bringing the girl back to your place (hotel room) instead of going to her place.

- Despite what you may think the police usually do, always be mindful of the law. You never know when a new police policy will come into effect, or when a police officer will decide to apply old laws (check out Lawrence v. Texas, where police officers arrested two gay guys for having anal sex in their own home! Yeah, they did win in the end, but only after a long court battle a public ridicule.)

 

[Babygirl]

Check out these links...direct from the Edmonton police

What is legal
http://www.police.edmonton.ab.ca/Pages/Prostitution/PublicInfo/PublicInfoMain.htm

What is illegal
http://www.police.edmonton.ab.ca/Pages/Prostitution/PublicInfo/PublicInfoMain.htm

 

[rafferty]

Damn. EB (and everyone else), lighten up! That was supposed to be a joke

 

[legionfalls]

Check out Law Matters on the following web site:

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/sociology/maticka/star/index.html

While it is no substitute for a legal advice from a lawyer, it does reflect the current application of the laws.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[bbkb]

How the law is applied depends on several factors. If society tolerates MPs and SPs if they are hidden away from view, I do not think that the law would bother to apply the law as they did years ago. If the police statistics start to look shabby, the word from above comes down to order crack downs.
The reality is that if the letter of the law is applied, then the police could make 20 - 30 or more arrest per week. This would not be in the best interest of the police department and it would flood the court house with cases.
Years ago, I remember seeing in the Allo Police many massage parlour bust, and many SWs on the street. Today, it is safer to work as an SP by advertising in the newspaper or to work in a massage salon than it is ti do SW activities.

 

[Carol]

Wasn't there a ruling in the 90's about the Pussy Cat club Montreal East. Saying that anything that happened between to consenting adults behind closed doors could not be considered illegal? I remember it making big headlines. And I'm not sure if this is part of that trial

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1993/1993rcs2-932/1993rcs2-932.html