Malarek insults Stella, SPoC, etc.

[eastender]

Practical Answers

You see Stella as group trying to convince sex workers to stay in the business? Stella is not a pimping organization. They have chosen not to provide direct assistance to the girls who want to leave the business. It is their choice as an organization. We don’t run their organization. They don’t have the money to do that. Their choice is helping the girls in the business. But should they decide to provide these services one day, I see no reason why they would be unprofessional in doing it. They provide one important type of assistance to them though: they refer them to the available resources. When we push this logic, the best place for help would be la Cles. They will teach them how much prostitution is an evil. The only thing here: an evil for someone may not be an evil for someone else.

Health issues are… health issues. More than 40% of the public spending goes into this area. Scarce service for PTSD? Money not spent where it should be spent? Need to spend even more? Need new rules for funding? Need better funding for community organizations? Need more money for prevention? Need different structures? Those are all good questions. But the fact is: as a society, we chose to have a public planning of our health system. We should expect that you should be eable to get in the system and that once you get in the system, they will diagnose the PTSD and offer a treatment. I understand JAG here. If it is common problem for the women getting out of the trade and we do not have in our health services the tools to deal with that, it is the role of prostitution advocates to make it a claim. It is not prostitution’ advocates’ responsibility to develop and provide theses services. How should this be made available? Who should the empowerers be? Psychiatry, psychologists, social assistance, community support groups? I don’t know. It is a technical question I believe. A very complex question for health system managers. Not much because we are talking about prostitutes, but because treatments, unless by a psychiatrist, is not totally supervised by the medical profession. I doubt that that community organizations are “well equipped” to deal with the complex health issues linked with PTSD. This is a responsibility for the medical profession I think.

The issue as I see it is simply building on practical answers. I do not see Stella as a pimping organization. Their mandate is to help those they serve within a defined niche. The question raised once, all emotion is removed, is equally simple. How does a sex worker leave the business?

A sex worker leaving the business effectively has expressed a desire to integrate back into the mainstream community. Figuring out what you are capable of doing and actually doing it are very different. Also this is not about what you would like to do without the appropriate background.

The community organizations serve as a bridge between the marginal and the mainstream elements of the community with traffic flowing in both directions. They have access to the health services, educational services, an understanding of employment opportunities, access to social services, etc. You will at least get an impartial opinion or assessment of the specific situation with some guidance avoiding paths that may not have a history of success. Also you will have the name of an organizations behind you when you may be all alone knocking on doors for help.

PTSD. We do not have a budget to deal with it for most specific professions or social groups. No psychologists, psychiatrists or others offer guarantees in this area. Conversely PTSD is not limited to the sex worker, it touches virtually all activities. Part of the process of getting back into the mainstream is recognizing that problems that you think are unique to you or your profession are part of the mainstream as well.

 

[CaptRenault]

The Canadian produced documentary "Sex Slaves," featuring the "expert" commentary of Victor Malarek was broadcast on U.S. public TV (PBS) this week. Here is a link to the Web site:

Frontline: Sex Slaves

In my opinion the show had a very clear anti-prostitution bias. Malarek appeared on camera spouting all kinds of unsubstantiated nonsense. The one useful thing that I learned was that the magazine The Nation published an excellent article a few years ago that carefully refutes the wild claims of Malarek and his fellow crusaders.

I found a link to the article on the Web site for the show. It's to the credit of PBS that they provided a link to an article that offers a different view on the whole "sex trafficking/sex slavery" mania.

Here's a link to the whole article and a brief excerpt:

Oversexed
The Nation
by Debbie Nathan
August 11, 2005

...Gloria Steinem working with the likes of Chuck Colson? It makes sense if one looks at history, going back about a decade. That's when US antiporn feminists gave up trying to ban sexual imagery and shifted their energies to prostitution. Former anti-porn activist Laura Lederer, for example, helped develop an "abolitionist" movement that aims to ban all commercial sex acts, involuntary and voluntary--even if prostitutes themselves protest the prohibition. There's no such thing as consent, as far as abolitionist organizations, like the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, are concerned. For them, everyone who crosses borders to work in prostitution is a "trafficking" victim.

Other feminists--particularly those who work with immigrants and women in developing countries--disagree. Activist theorists like Ann Snitow and Carole Vance view prostitution as just one of many onerous and often sexist jobs available to poor women who migrate to support their families. They reject the idea of singling it out for opprobrium if it's done voluntarily, by adults. Wary of law-and-order solutions to structural economic and social problems, these feminists talk about "sex work" and encourage members of the trade to unionize. Organizing in countries like India, they note, has educated voluntary prostitutes to identify captives in the brothels and help liberate them. That approach combats trafficking better than does relying on often corrupt, macho police. Even do-gooder raids frequently end with "victims" being deported--or fleeing their "rescuers" and returning to the brothels. Organizing also helps sex workers protect themselves from sexually transmitted disease, violence and exploitation by pimps. Organizing would be much easier if prostitution were decriminalized, proponents of this approach believe. It would promote gender and socioeconomic equality--making it easier for sex workers to leave the trade if they wish to...

...Labor-rights-oriented groups objected, and the late Senator Paul Wellstone wrote most of the TVPA's [Trafficking Victims Protection Act] final wording. It outlaws all forced work--not just prostitution, and not just labor done by women and children. For the TVPA coercion is required in order to prosecute perpetrators and help victims. But abolitionist feminists and evangelicals retained language that labels as "trafficking" all smuggling of immigrants into prostitution--even if they knew what line of work they'd be getting into and are doing it voluntarily, and even though immigrants working voluntarily as prostitutes probably far outnumber those who are coerced, both internationally and in this country, according to researchers such as University of West Indies sociologist Kemala Kempadoo, who studies migration and sex work. In a slick rhetorical maneuver, the TVPA offers no assistance to individuals who've been voluntarily smuggled to work as prostitutes, yet it counts them as "trafficking" victims, along with brothel prisoners. The conflation inflates the severity of the "sex slave" problem in the public mind...

 

[Regular Guy]

Hey! The X generation would find 65 000 $ cheap. Make it 64 M $ and we’ll have a debate. lol.

Yeah, inflation does tend to put a different complexion on things.

A society that decides to legalize prostitution take a position on the morality of prostitution. A society that criminalizes either sex workers or clients for the simple act of prostitution takes a position on the morality of prostitution. A society that decriminalizes prostitution does not necessarily take a position on the moral issue — New Zealand did not— it takes a specific mean to obtain specific results: security and health for the sex workers. And we need no moral background to appreciate the results. We need facts. Decriminalization is about public health, occupational health and the security of escorts. Escorts are citizens and they have a right to all of that as citizens. Some brands of morality, I agree, are nothing else than fancy excuses for ignoring these issues.

No question that facts are the best reinforcement for any argument but in the strictest sense the facts supporting decriminalization do fall under the moral umbrella of what is called Utilitarianism, a form of morality which has as its premise the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

It is amazing but you will always find those who will argue with premises which seem to fly in the face of the facts, common sense or whatever. In any society the only philosophical position which would seem to prevail in debate is that which would seem to be the most popular at any one moment in time, unfortunately. For example, if there was no prostitution in a society then health and other related issues would become irrelevant. But just for the record, being a bit of a pragmatist like you, I do agree as to the very strong arguments for decriminalization based on health concerns and the like.

 

[Lou Simone]

Toronto Star: In defence of women who want to sell sex

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/633275

In defence of women who want to sell sex
Columnist says book tells only half the story
May 13, 2009
ANTONIA ZERBISIAS
Living columist


Victor Malarek is practically shouting over the phone.

Maybe it's because he's talking on his mobile, on his way to satisfy a craving for strawberries and ice cream.

More likely because the investigative reporter, formerly with CBC's the fifth estate and now with CTV's W-FIVE, is frustrated with my objections to his new book, The Johns: Sex for Sale and the Men Who Buy It.

It's a follow-up to his The Natashas: The New Global Sex Trade.

It's not that we disagree on many points. Human trafficking is, indeed, very wrong. Child prostitution is horrifying. Sex tourism is disgusting. What happens to women who hit the streets, where they fall prey to drugs, violent clients, brutal pimps, corrupt cops and even serial killers, is unspeakable.

As for the misogyny online, where Malarek found 16 "johns" he interviewed and "five thousand posts" he analyzed, well, tell me something I don't know. Cyberspace is one-handed nirvana for misogynists who cruise degrading porn and talk trash about women.

What I object to is Malarek's contention that all sex work is wrong; that there is, for all intents and purposes, no such thing as, to use his words, a "happy hooker.''

Which infuriates "Ginger,'' one of several women I know, maybe even the mom next door to you, who love their escort jobs.

A fortysomething divorcée with two teens, she stumbled into the trade through a friend 10 years ago. When she discovered that she could support her family working only a few days a week – with NHL players, touring rock stars and even (former) provincial premiers – she quit her social services job and never looked back.

"(Malarek) just cannot see anyone choosing to do this," Ginger tells me, echoing other professional escorts. "It's a very paternalistic, patronizing attitude he has and he chooses to ignore all the women – I know women are talking to him. I know women are saying, `Listen to me' – and he brushes them off as the happy hooker contingency."

To Malarek, those who lobby for the decriminalization of prostitution are "bozos'' who are "unrelenting and vociferous shills for the sex industry" and "staunchly defend women's rights to sell their bodies and men's rights to buy them.''

Well, as a supporter of this "happy hooker lobby," I must say that most of the groups he lists do not represent men at all, except for those men who work in the sex trade.

Instead, what the groups, such as SPOC (Sex Professionals of Canada), do is fight for the rights and safety of adults – mostly women – who choose to work as "call girls.''

After all, sex is not illegal here. Neither is buying a woman a drink and/or dinner and getting consensual sex in return. And neither, for that matter, is prostitution.

What is illegal are the means that protect sex workers from harm.

Canada's Criminal Code, for example, prevents the keeping of a "bawdy house." That means women can't set up shop together. Isn't there safety in numbers?

It also prevents people from "living on the avails'' of prostitution. That means, if you're working to put your live-in teenage son through college, he could be construed as a "pimp.''

(Note that, in Ontario, SPOC is fighting a legal challenge against these laws.)

Malarek's book really doesn't get into the legal details, except to rant against how legalization – which he conflates with the very different decriminalization – has been a failure in other countries.

But where is his research? His footnotes? His citations?

Instead, he relies heavily on American clinical psychologist Melissa Farley, whose work is subsidized by a group that equates sex work with human trafficking.

But, if there's so much human trafficking in North America, how come there haven't been mass arrests? Why do abolitionists such as Malarek (and Farley) focus only on street workers and sex slaves?

As Ginger points out: "There aren't data on average mainstream sex workers because they don't get arrested, don't have drug problems and don't fall within statistics. The only thing I do that's illegal is that I work for an agency."

An agency that supplies drivers to keep an eye on things, maintains "bad client lists'' and takes about $45 from every $200 one-hour "call." All sex is "covered'' – i.e., safe – and, according to Ginger, who has never had a bad experience, makes up only a few moments of the typical hour.

But Malarek ignores such escort services – which are legion – to complain that "in the world of prostitution, there is no such thing as safe sex. It is a world prone to violence, drug addiction, degradation, disease, depression, vulnerability.''

No argument there, with one caveat: That usually happens only when sex workers are treated like criminals, pushed to the margins and have no rights.

In fairness, Malarek reserves his harshest judgment for men who, in his opinion, should never have a reason to buy sex, no matter what. Even if they're infirm, socially awkward or butt-ugly.

"They can get a relationship!'' he shouts into the phone.

To him, it's simple. Go after the "male urges.'' Punish the johns.

But to Ginger, that's simplistic.

"I think the abolitionist theory is dangerous," she insists. "You're not going to abolish it, first of all. So that makes the book profoundly unrealistic.

"The problem is, if you punish the johns, if you go by the Swedish example, the only customers you lose are the good ones, the ones with good jobs and lives who are afraid of infringing on that with criminal charges. The ones who stay are the bad guys who don't care.''

And, as Malarek insists, there are enough bad guys buying sex as it is.

 

[naughtylady]

I wonder what research the author has conducted to even bring up the eventuality of live-in teenage sons being construed as pimps in a court of law.

I know women who have been threatened with having live-in family members charged so that they will plead guilty and settle quickly.

The way the law is written, theoretically if I help my mom (or any one else, for that matter) out financially and she doesn't live with me she can be charged with living partially off the avails.

Read section 212 of the criminal code. Here I am pasting part of it here: Procuring

212. (1) Every one who

(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada,

(b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prostitution,

(c) knowingly conceals a person in a common bawdy-house,

(d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute,

(e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that person in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Canada,

(f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, directs or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house,

(g) procures a person to enter or leave Canada, for the purpose of prostitution,

(h) for the purposes of gain, exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally,

(i) applies or administers to a person or causes that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual intercourse with that person, or

(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.


It is not likely that charges against family would stick but the laws can make life difficult when defending one's innocence.


Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[gugu]

I wonder what research the author has conducted to even bring up the eventuality of live-in teenage sons being construed as pimps in a court of law.

LMAO,

this guy just cannot miss an occasion to ridicule himself!

 

[gugu]

The usual unsubstantial snipe from our tofu-delivering, BS propagating, GT animating, new gustapo-board regulating and cravenly submissive industry shill and weasel wording champion, pimp wannabe (and what else? that's about it) ...

Point to 1 case, just 1 judgement that would fit the description, just 1. I'm waiting.

An other shot from the abolitionist wannabe!

 

[Lou Simone]

A judgment that explains it all:
R. v. Naud, 1996 CanLII 485 (BC C.A.)
You can find it on CanLII:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=prostitution%2C+212&language=fr&searchTitle=Chercher+dans+les+collections+de+CanLII&path=/en/bc/bcca/doc/1996/1996canlii485/1996canlii485.html

Of course I cant imagine a judge that could be irresponsible enough to find guilty a child of abusing of his mom revenue at 16yrs old. no supreme court judge would let that become jurisprudence... the journalist didnt chose a good example of the effect of 212. like most journalists, she picked the sensationalist lane, what a shock....

Still, everyone with the minimum of a brain can understand that these laws can be harmful and could be greatly improved in the best interest of the providers and everyone else who benefit from sex work and has no hidden agenda n'est-ce pas?

 

[gugu]

Improved in what way? 210 I can understand but 212?

Did I read correctly? "210 I can understand..."

Please back up that statement. Do I understand that you would agree with a legislative reform that would permit the establishment of brothels in Canada? What would that bring to the table not only for SP'S and operators, but for the society in general?

 

[YouVantOption]

I wonder what research the author has conducted to even bring up the eventuality of live-in teenage sons being construed as pimps in a court of law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/could
"Used to indicate probability or possibility under the specified circumstances"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eventuality
"The coming as a consequence; contingency; also, an event which comes as a consequence."

Jeepers this forum astounds me sometimes.

 

[YouVantOption]

So it's basically a matter of principle since we have yet to see one case of SP boyfriend, mommy, mononc' and matante being prosecuted - 1 case. It never happened.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/04/30/9299526-sun.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473114,00.html

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...her-into-prostitution-toronto-police-say.aspx

 

[YouVantOption]

And your point?

In direct contradiction to your erroneous assertion that prosecutions never happened.

 

[YouVantOption]

LOL - You obviously haven't been paying attention. Here we are talking about human traffickers and not exactly the innocent family members or SP boyfriends I was referring to. Roll back to both Ronnie's and Lou Simone's posts and think this one through.

Unless you suspect that Ronnie's mom is a human trafficker, I fail to see a contradiction - LMAO

{note to self: Why do you bother? Don't argue with the retarded!}

Ronnie was speaking of people living off the avails:

The way the law is written, theoretically if I help my mom (or any one else, for that matter) out financially and she doesn't live with me she can be charged with living partially off the avails.

You responded that we have seen no boyfriends prosecuted:

we have yet to see one case of SP boyfriend, mommy, mononc' and matante being prosecuted - 1 case. It never happened.

I responded with three discrete instances, two recent, of boyfriends being prosecuted under the anti-pimp law, thus proving your assertion to be completely wrong.

 

[eastender]

Specifics

Unless actual criminal filings(case numbers) and convictions are presented all we have are media stories with the accompanying puffery, opinion and spin.

The list of charges from a police arrest report, or whatever it may be called in any specific jurisdiction, rarely result in the same number of charges actually being filed in the criminal proceedings that result.

 

[gugu]

10-19,

Avant que tu continues de dire trop de conneries, faudrait que tu comprennes un ou deux trucs.

1 Tu veux qu’on te prenne au sérieux? Ben alors change ton attitude. Tu défends Malarek contre vents et marées malgré la montagne de bêtises qu’il chie. Tu te prends toi-même au jeu de défendre les fondements de la pensée abolitionniste. Tu accroches sur un détail anodin dans l’article de Zerbizias. C’est ton seul commentaire sur l’article. T’es même pas foutu de dire qu’il cite quelqu’un. Au total, ça donne portrait où il manque peut-être un ti-peu d’équilibre.

La coutume veut que lorsqu’on joue l’avocat du diable, on commence en disant : « je vais jouer l’avocat du diable ». Quand on ne le dit pas, les gens peuvent te prendre au sérieux. Alors tu comprends qu’avec la quantité de conneries que ce jeu t’amène à dire, il n’est pas étonnant que tu rencontres de la résistance. Et quand tu as de la résistance, ça devient toujours très comique : tu répliques par l’insulte. Et comme je vois vraiment le genre de petit prétentieux et suffisant, assez stéréotypé du reste, que tu es capable de jouer, ça rajoute à mes fou rire.

2 Comme je me rends compte que tu es vraiment sérieux sur l’histoire de l’article 212 je vais t’expliquer un truc. Ça n’existe pas, nulle part dans le monde, des législations qui n’interdisent pas le proxénétisme. Ça n’existe pas, nulle part dans le monde, des groupes de tds qui viennent à la défense des proxénètes. C’est-ti clair? Peux-tu rentrer ça dans ton petit coco, aussi reptilien soit-il?

Des groupes de défense des tds existent au Canada. Ils ont toutes sortes de tendances, de discours, de positions, de porte-parole et d’opinions. Tous les groupes cherchent au moins deux choses : se donner des conditions de travail plus sécuritaires (contre les abuseurs) et se mettre à l’abri des poursuites judiciaires (contre l’arbitraire de la conduite policière dans le contexte où aucune loi n’encadre la prostitution). La position dominante dans les groupes au Canada est qu’il faut décriminaliser sans légaliser. Décriminaliser, ça veut dire permettre le in-call parce que la sécurité y est plus grande; sortir du code criminel, où elle n'a pas sa place, et confier aux administrations locales la réglementation sur le racolage; et sortir de l’article 212 les paragraphes (1) j et (3) qui ouvrent la porte à l’arbitraire des policiers et des tribunaux. 212 pose en fait bien d’autres problèmes. Avant de t’emporter, sur l’article 212, sache que le jour où le Canada décriminalisera le in-call et les entreprises qui offrent des services sexuels, la nécessité d’amender l’article 212 deviendra, à toutes fins utiles, caduque. Les groupes de défense des tds ne voient pas ça? So what? What’s the big deal? L’article 212 est là pour le moment et si rien ne change par ailleurs, il pose des problèmes. Les organisations de défense des tds souhaitent la décriminalisation; elles pointent les épines qu’elles ne veulent plus à leur pied.

3 Tu fais confiance aux tribunaux? Ben moi aussi vois-tu. Pis les tribunaux, ils ne mettent pas en prison les parents et les colocs des tds. C’est évident. Tu fais confiance aux corps policiers? Ben moi aussi vois-tu. Encore qu’il y a encore bien des abus dans l’application des règles sur le racolage. Sauf que les tribunaux et les services policiers ils servent de béquilles à un système politique qui n’a pas le courage de légiférer. Et ça, ce n’est pas normal en démocratie.

Dans la situation actuelle, le code criminel canadien dit que la prostitution est illégale dans bien des circonstances. Tout le monde s’adapte : l’industrie, la police et les tribunaux. Demander à l’industrie de prendre les devants et d’instaurer, CONTRE la loi, le in-call, plus sécuritaire, c’est aller trop loin. C’est aussi, dans la mesure où ça se ferait, donner favoriser les grosses agences qui ont les moyens de se défendre devant les tribunaux. Les Indys devraient le faire? Plusieurs le font? Oui. Les tribunaux et les services policiers trouvent la manière de les protéger? Oui. Sauf que toi pis moi, on n’est pas escortes. Et quand elles disent que la situation n’est pas ce qu’il y a de mieux, moi je les crois. Ce qu’elle font, dois-je te le rappeler, ce n’est pas de s’exposer à une simple amende, c’est carrément criminel au sens du code criminel. Qu’il n’y ait pas d’abus des tribunaux et des services policiers ne change strictement rien au fait que ce qu’elles font est criminel.

4 Les organisations de défense des tds n’ont pas la bonne stratégie? Peut-être. Personnellement, je ne juge pas de ça parce que je ne suis pas sur le terrain à leur place. En Nouvelle-Zélande, la première version du projet de loi sur la décriminalisation a été rédigée par un collectif de groupes de prostituées en compagnie d’organisations de femmes, d’avocats bénévoles, de groupes non gouvernementaux et de membres de plusieurs partis politiques. Serait-il possible de faire la même chose ici? Je ne sais pas. Ce que sais, par contre, c’est que les fouilleux de merde, les correcteurs de grammaire et les directeurs de conscience qui passent leur temps à chier sur ces groupes de défense des tds n’aident en rien à faire avancer quoi que ce soit. In my opinion, they’d better just GTFO.

Still waiting for yours arguments against 210.

 

[Regular Guy]

Ethics?...........Where?............

gugu

LMAO,

this guy just cannot miss an occasion to ridicule himself!

YVO

I responded with three discrete instances, two recent, of boyfriends being prosecuted under the anti-pimp law, thus proving your assertion to be completely wrong.

10-19

Utter clown statement. She was specifically speaking of cases that would represent injustices should these be prosecuted in court, you moron.

...............And now back to our regular programming..............

Quote:
It also prevents people from "living on the avails'' of prostitution. That means, if you're working to put your live-in teenage son through college, he could be construed as a "pimp.''

(...) But where is his research? His footnotes? His citations?
I wonder what research the author has conducted to even bring up the eventuality of live-in teenage sons being construed as pimps in a court of law.

Answer: He has none. The whole idea of this book is marketing through scare tactics and sensationalism. He has committed more sins of omission than a certain past prime minister we all know. That has always been my point right from the beginning. I used to think this guy was a class act but now his disgraceful lack of journalistic ethics, I find reprehensible.

 

[gugu]

gugu,

J'ai lu le premier paragraphe de ton post et m'arrête là. Trop long et j'anticipe le même indécrottable verbiage.

''Qu'on te prenne au sérieux'' dis-tu? - LOL. J'ignorais qu'il existe ici un comité de validation sur ce board et que tu en étais le porte-parole. D'ailleurs qu'est-ce que j'en ai à branler que tu me prennes au sérieux ou pas compte tenu que j'ai depuis longtemps cessé de TE prendre au sérieux.

J'ai mieux à faire de mon temps que d'échanger avec des idiots.

C'est pour toi que j'écris petit imbécile. C'est pour montrer aux autres l'étendue de ta mauvaise foi.

 

[naughtylady]

I do not have the patience to access a legal library to verify for precedence for prosecution of family under the charge of living off the avails.

Do we have a Canadian lawyer, or someone else who can verify for us?

Just because we haven't seen it reported in the papers doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[gugu]

I do not have the patience to access a legal library to verify for precedence for prosecution of family under the charge of living off the avails.

Do we have a Canadian lawyer, or someone else who can verify for us?

Just because we haven't seen it reported in the papers doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
y

Ronnie, if you are talking about a mom or a boyfriend, you will not find any such case, at least in the last 40 years. Tribunals have quite clearly defined the criterias to accept such accusations. The jugement cited by Lou Simone is part of that jurisprudence. Clearly, living off the avails of prostitution of someone else is not a sufficient ground for accusation. You must do so in a parasitic way and the parasitic way has to contain exploitation.

 

[Regular Guy]

Intent!

I do not have the patience to access a legal library to verify for precedence for prosecution of family under the charge of living off the avails.

Do we have a Canadian lawyer, or someone else who can verify for us?

Just because we haven't seen it reported in the papers doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

• procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person,
• inveigles or entices a person,
• knowingly conceals, causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be take,
• for the purposes of gain, exercises control, direction or influence over,
• applies or administers to a person or causes that person

(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person,

Now it may be true that in the case of (j) the question of intent seems to be absent but when you look at the section of 212 you have reproduced here the emphasis as gugu has said is that there must be a substantial element of intent. Though I am not a lawyer IMHO this would tend to influence the direction prosecutors would be inclined to follow.