Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: Promoting sex services...

  1. #1

    Promoting sex services...

    I couldn`t help but notice that many women and agencies are advertising sex. It has become quite frequent to go on a provider`s website and see : , greek, cim, msog, etc. Now let`s be honnest, it doesn`t take a PHD to understand the meaning of those acronyms. It`s very simple to find MERB and find the acronym`s signification. It also became quite frequent to see pictures of the the providers naked in very erotic positions (I am not talking about artistic nudes or ``soft core``).

    My point here is only this : When I started in this business 6yrs ago, a Montreal lawyer who also worked with Stella had told me that everything I did was legal (besides living off the money I made this way) as long as I didn`t advertise a sexual service. I also had that told to me by a woman at Stella in those times.

    This means a woman can advertise companionship and will never have any problems with the law (besides maybe for not declaring her incomes). But a woman who says clearly : ``for 200$ per hour we will have sex`` is at risk of being arrested and prosecuted just as much as a woman who is caught hustling on the street.

    So if all this is true, that means the day the governement puts some money into fighting prostitution, there are many agencies and women who will end up with at least a criminal file... and I don`t think the clients who end up being caught at the same time will be spared from prosecution either.

    So I don`t know if there is a Quebec licensed lawyer here who could put some light on this? Besides the fact that the police doesn`t have all the ressources to fight prostitution and it is less checked than it use to be, is there anything in the law that has changed and now allows those things? Has hustling also become legal? Is ``pimping`` now something legal too? I really wonder.

    Last edited by Lilly Lombard; 11-07-2008 at 02:29 AM.
    "It's a God-given talent. It was meant to be shared with the public." (Moustache, Irma La Douce, 1963)

    www.lillyofmontreal.com

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by mazingerz
    En fait, c'est toléré. Quand les policiers font de l'infiltration, assez souvent ils cherchent des mineurs et/ou de la drogue. Si l'escorte a des pleintes car elle dérange ses voisins, là aussi elle peut avoir des problèmes. Mais sinon, quoique le risque soit présent, il n'est pas énorme.

    Mais dans le fond, est-ce que les policiers vont venir chez toi cogner et demander avec qui tu baises et si on s'est échangé de l'argent? Je ne croierais pas. C'est sûr que quelqu'un de moindrement discret n'ira pas faire ça en pleine rue.

    Les policiers ont toujours fait de l'infiltration pour la drogue et les mineurs. Sauf que je me rappelle un temps où ils ramassaient la femme qui se faisait prendre à racoller des clients.

    C'était lâ même chose pour celle qui vendait du "sex" dans le journal de Montréal ou sur internet.

    Même pour aller plus loin que ça, le Incall était quelquechose vraiment pas toléré au Québec. C'est la raison pourquoi plusieurs indépendantes des années passé ne l'offraient qu'en Touring (car c'est toléré en Ontario et dans les autres provinces). Maintenant, les filles reçoivent même chez elles! Ça aussi c'est rendu "toléré"?

    Alors j'imagine que ce que tu me dis c'est qu'ils sont de plus en plus tolérant, qu'ils n'en n'ont pratiquement plus rien à foutre et que pratiquement tout, si ça n'implique ni mineurs ni drogues est toléré.
    "It's a God-given talent. It was meant to be shared with the public." (Moustache, Irma La Douce, 1963)

    www.lillyofmontreal.com

  3. #3
    Dissident
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Never the safest place
    Posts
    61
    I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the laws have not significantly changed in that time. "Hustling on the street" violates section 213 because it is communicating in a public place for the purpose of prostitution.
    Pimping is covered by section 212.
    "Common bawdy houses" are covered by section 210 and 211.
    http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...o-ga:l_VII//en
    Last edited by HaywoodJabloemy; 11-07-2008 at 04:39 AM.

  4. #4

    Red face Overlooked Point

    The police and the criminal aspects are minor issues.

    The main concern is the income tax issue at the federal and provincial levels PLUS the GST and PST that is due on services offered. Generate over $30,000 a year in service related income and you have to pay GST and PST. This is also true for dancers in SCs.

    Since avoiding taxes is a criminal matter you would have a number of issues to resolve. Suggest seeing an accountant instead of a lawyer.
    LISA'S FRIEND

  5. #5
    I wish a lawyer would respond here. My understanding of Canadian law is that prostitution is legal in Canada and that the only thing that isn't is solicitation, living off the avails (pimping/madam etc) and maintaining a common bawdy house ( incall).

    So basically outcall escorting is legal. And why Montreal is the escort capital of North America.

    I'm not sure whether internet advertising falls under the definition of solicitation or not and whether this has been tested in the courts or not.
    It would appear that law enforcement isn't particularly interested in escort advertising. Certainly indy outcall ladies, of age, would appear to have noting to worry about. Has anyone ever heard of any being busted ?

    The two Montreal agencies that were busted years ago (LFMJ and Heartbreakers) were busted because of underage girls were they not ?

    Where's JohnHenry when you need him.

    PS I understand most of the acronyms except I haven't seen anyone advertise PHD
    PPS You have great taste in duo partners

  6. #6
    Recreational User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In a house, on a street, duh.
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Possum Trot
    The two Montreal agencies that were busted years ago (LFMJ and Heartbreakers) were busted because of underage girls were they not ?

    zzcream.

    countless pictures in Alo Police of people doing the walk of shame out of 'bawdy houses'.

    Cops running prossies out of the streets of the west end a few years back.

    C'mon. it isn't that uncommon.
    You are cordially invited to toss my salad. There's an app for that!

  7. #7
    Dissident
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Never the safest place
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Possum Trot
    ...It would appear that law enforcement isn't particularly interested in escort advertising... Has anyone ever heard of any being busted ?..
    In 1990 the publishing company of Now magazine in Toronto was charged under the communicating law, but the charges were eventually dropped.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOW_(magazine)

    The wording of section 213 appears to refer to the behaviour of a person in a public place -- stopping cars or other people, etc. -- so attempting to apply it to print ads would probably be a stretch.

    But ads for agencies or incalls that list specific services are in effect advertising that they are "living on the avails of prostitution" and/or "keeping a common bawdy house"... Although I would assume the police and everyone else know they are in the sex business even if the services are not listed. What I find puzzling is how even the raving abolitionists don't complain about the usual indifference of the police. You'd think they would be angrily urging the police to enforce the laws.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by HaywoodJabloemy
    But ads for agencies or incalls that list specific services are in effect advertising that they are "living on the avails of prostitution" and/or "keeping a common bawdy house"... Although I would assume the police and everyone else know they are in the sex business even if the services are not listed. What I find puzzling is how even the raving abolitionists don't complain about the usual indifference of the police. You'd think they would be angrily urging the police to enforce the laws.

    I certainly agree with you on this. That is exactly my point! How come no one has complain yet? I am sure there are neighbors to incall places. I am sure there are angry women who's husband uses one of those services. I mean, it's gone far from a few years ago. And I remember when I was younger many massage parlors who didn't advertise any sex were busted.

    Nowadays it would be so much simpler to do it, no need to even visit them and receive services in order to know they do it. On many level people are publicly breaking the law some, on all levels :

    - Agency run by a manager, promotes a detailed sexual services in public on their website, they offer incalls and live off the money from sex trade.

    That would be so easy to go and bust them.


    I do not know how comfortable I am with it really, I don't think I am. Just like Charlotte said in a previous post, it goes completely against all the legal advices I've ever received.
    "It's a God-given talent. It was meant to be shared with the public." (Moustache, Irma La Douce, 1963)

    www.lillyofmontreal.com

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by HaywoodJabloemy
    In 1990 the publishing company of Now magazine in Toronto was charged under the communicating law, but the charges were eventually dropped.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOW_(magazine)

    The wording of section 213 appears to refer to the behaviour of a person in a public place -- stopping cars or other people, etc. -- so attempting to apply it to print ads would probably be a stretch.

    But ads for agencies or incalls that list specific services are in effect advertising that they are "living on the avails of prostitution" and/or "keeping a common bawdy house"... Although I would assume the police and everyone else know they are in the sex business even if the services are not listed. What I find puzzling is how even the raving abolitionists don't complain about the usual indifference of the police. You'd think they would be angrily urging the police to enforce the laws.
    Interesting case about now but they should have tried to charge the person that placed the ad and not the paper I think to make the charges stick.

    The ads for incall do seem like a taunt for police though don't they.

  10. #10
    Recreational User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In a house, on a street, duh.
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by juzt_a_girl
    I think it's more a matter of 'what are LE's resources to act on complaints?'

    JAG
    Yes. Precisely right. Ergo the focus on sex-slaves and children, which are circumstances both egregious and a small enough subset upon which to focus scant resources.
    You are cordially invited to toss my salad. There's an app for that!

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by juzt_a_girl
    The internet could be considered a public place. I'm not aware of such a case ever setting a precedent however, here or in the US. If it did, a lot of people would have a lot to lose, least of which would be the escorts. If the internet can be considered a public space, then wouldn't newspapers as well, which have advertised escort services for years? Agencies would have a lot to lose - their advertising power and by extension their revenue - but who cares. What percentage of the J de M's revenue comes from their adult ads? Take into consideration that those ads cost 3 times regular ads. Does that revenue not also create revenue for the provincial and federal levels of government in the form of income tax? Finally, take into account that the big three papers require a business registration to advertise. That means the municipal court has money to lose as well. But there's a lot more to lose: once we open this internet sollicitation can of worms, won't we also need to look at other possible offences, such as aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, procuring (newspaper adult want ads) and living off the avails?

    JAG
    The legality of this is a concern/interest of mine and I remember asking Emma when she was joining FKS. She said, for what it's worth, that they set it up with legal advice so that it was legal.

    The online gambling sites seem to dodge the law by setting up with offshore addresses and IP providers or on Native reserves. Perhaps something similar is being done by some of the more sophisticated agencies.

    I have another question concerning the "living off the avails". I have a gut feeling that this only applies to pimps and agency owners and not the person providing the service. I guess it doesn't apply to newspapers either. It is so prevalent that it must have been tested at one point - perhaps it was this Now case.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Possum Trot
    I have another question concerning the ``living off the avails``. I have a gut feeling that this only applies to pimps and agency owners and not the person providing the service. I guess it doesn`t apply to newspapers either. It is so prevalent that it must have been tested at one point - perhaps it was this Now case.

    Well, from what I remember, about 4-5 yrs ago, a companion, who was also a university student and lived in a very nice condo in downtown Montreal was caught by Revenu Canada because they found irregularities in her income and lifestyle. I think she would deposit the money into her bank account and that is how they were able to accuse her of tax excape. I remember she ended up owing the governement a big amount of money.
    "It's a God-given talent. It was meant to be shared with the public." (Moustache, Irma La Douce, 1963)

    www.lillyofmontreal.com

  13. #13
    Dissident
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Never the safest place
    Posts
    61
    "Not enough resources" is the usual excuse police give for their general inaction. I suppose it has some validity because gathering evidence for a bust is a time consuming process. But in the 1970s in Toronto something called The Disorderly Houses Act was invoked to quickly close all of the massage parlours (which led to a big increase in the amount of street prostitution). And about five years ago police visited all 350 massage parlours in the Greater Toronto Area in one evening, so apparently there was no lack of resources that night.

    Whatever the excuse may be, someone has to have decided that it's not important to put much effort into enforcing these laws. It contradicts the usual public police stance arguing against decriminalization. These laws are important enough to keep, but not important enough to enforce very much?

    And police ignoring supposedly outlawed prostitution operations does not give the appearance of an honest justice system.
    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...012936,00.html
    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/e...ok10lewis.html
    Last edited by HaywoodJabloemy; 11-07-2008 at 01:29 PM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilly Lombard
    the day the governement puts some money into fighting prostitution, there are many agencies and women who will end up with at least a criminal file...

    The criminal code makes it an offense to communicate for purpose of prostitution in "a public place". (defined in s. 213 (2) C.cr). When looking at the context, it is very probable (but not 100% certain) that a judge would rule that the internet is not "a public place" for purposes of s. 213 C.Cr. Therefore, the girls will most likely be OK if they pay their taxes (do you have a GST #? ) and respect the rest of the C.Cr.


    The agency owners are taking a risk. By openly advertising their sexual services, they are helping to prove that they are "living off the avails" (s. 212.(1)(j) C.Cr.). If the police investigate, they could easily arrest them.
    Last edited by Kepler; 11-07-2008 at 02:07 PM.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilly Lombard
    Haha! Yep, I do have a GST and PST number! But I do not live of the "avails of".
    Having seen your website, it seems clear that you "live (in part) on the avails of prostitution". This is not illegal in Canada. What is illegal is living "wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person" (s. 212 (1) j) C.Cr.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Lilly Lombard
    The money received for companionship is a gift and in Canada, gifts are NOT taxable because they are given after taxes was already taken on it (I love accountants who read the grey zones).

    There is no gray zone here. If your accountant says there is, get a new accountant! (or at least a second opinion.)

    You are in the business of providing escort services. Any money received is therefore business income. It is not a gift, just like I do not give gifts to my plumber when he comes to fix my sink.

    If you had a very very limited client list (eg: 5 people), no website, no set fee, etc. Then I could buy the "gift" theory. The facts in this case are very different.


    Of course you can do what you want, but if you want to be legal, you must report this as business income.




    ("s. 5 (1), ITA: Subject to this Part, a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities, received by the taxpayer in the year."

    Under s. 6 of the act, you must even include as income jewelry and other gifts received from clients. It's sad, but true.
    http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/I-3.3///en )
    Last edited by Kepler; 11-07-2008 at 03:36 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •