Calgary LE "interview" new agency escorts?

The problem with the City of Calgary is that they're playing both ends of the same game. Prostitution is LEGAL in Canada already, under the federal criminal code. There are a few laws on the books governing certain aspects of the business (brothels, pimping, exploitation of minors, and public solicitation) -- which are reasonable considering that these laws exist simply to protect basic community values and to protect individuals from exploitation.

Some Canadian cities -- of which Calgary is most certainly one! -- seek to exploit public prejudice against legal prostitution services by levying unreasonably large fees against them. When I lived in Alberta in 2002, I checked out the licensing fees for escorts and agencies. The only two other businesses which were equal to or around the same rate of bylaw licensing fees were home alarm installation services (and that seems reasonable because false home alarms would place a burden on municipal resources) and public events, such as concerts -- which would generate lots of noise and conduct complaints. But why should escorts be in this high-range category? Are there huge complaints about escorts? I sincerely doubt it. Escorts and agencies tend to operate under the radar. Do such operators generate large expenses for the municipality? Again, I doubt it.

A note on the City of Calgary website (which has since been removed, I think) noted that they reserved the right to charge higher licensing fees to businesses that ran counter to the morals of their constituents. ???? Who exactly do they feel are escort service clients???

Essentially, it's just another money grab. Any time you find a woman in our business making money, you're going to find some man somewhere looking to pimp us. Sadly, in Canada, that man takes the form of municipalities more often than not these days.

The money they take from licensing escorts NEVER once has ended up going towards addressing escort-service related problems or towards bettering the lives of escorts or hobbyists. In other words, they're just pimping us all.

..c..

Prostitution is legal in Canada under very limited circumstances--the entire transaction has to be agreed on and executed in a private place such as a residence or a hotel room.

Agencies, which is what this article is talking about, are either outright illegal, usually illegal, or in a grey zone.

There are several charges that could be brought against the operators of an agency, but the two that stand out like a sore thumb are "living off the avails of prostitution" and "procuring". It's illegal to profit from someone else's prostitution, and it's illegal to hire someone to be a prostitute. That makes it generally illegal to operate an agency, though proving those things might usually be tough.

Here is the section of the criminal code that nails agencies:

212 (1) (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 ... is guilty of an indictable offence and liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Click to expand...

You could argue there are various loopholes an agency could jump through, "don't ask, don't tell" and such, which is why if it's not outright illegal it's just very, very grey. Judges and juries aren't stupid and they might not be fooled by your pretending not to know what was going on.

Or you could argue that, if running an agency was illegal under the criminal code, why exactly does the City of Calgary license agencies and require licensed escorts to work for a licensed agency or hold an escort agency license themselves?

If anyone is "living off the avails" in Calgary, it's the municipal bylaw office itself!

..c..

fuji said:

Prostitution is legal in Canada under very limited circumstances--the entire transaction has to be agreed on and executed in a private place such as a residence or a hotel room.

Click to expand...

Well not quite that bad. It can be agreed on by phone, can advertise sexual sevices on the Internet, in newspapers etc since its not a public "place".

On agencies, living of the avils has to be a paresitic (sp?) relationship according to an Ontario Court. The agency only sells time not sex. No fee for sex only the escorts time.

But obviously law needs to be changed to get rid of these ancient laws as long as consenting adults in private.

HaywoodJabloemy said:

... or racketeering. For example, the $10,000 a year fee Toronto charges for a body-rub parlour licence could seem to be "protection money" to avoid criminal charges. They officially claim they don't license any business to provide sexual services, but it sure has that appearance.

More in Calgary Herald today
Definitely not your opera date

Click to expand...

That's the Catch 22 -- they license known sex work services to generate revinue, but then, once they do, they're aware that they're now officially "pimps" -- and so they have to fight that stigma by occasionally taking down one or more of the same businesses/independents that line their pockets.

There was an interesting thesis written a few years ago about escort licensing in the city of Windsor, Ontario. Supposedly, monies collected through licensing fees were supposed to go towards education and retraining of escorts who wished to leave the business. However, at the time the paper was written, no money had been put towards this end. It all just went into the municipal coffers!

The hypocrisy of municipalities that seek to license our businesses is sickening. They rely on stigma and public ignorance to get away with bilking our businesses and exploiting individual sex workers. And they know they can get away with it too -- after all, who is going to take a stand against them?

..c..

Dave in Phoenix said:

On agencies, living of the avils has to be a paresitic (sp?) relationship according to an Ontario Court. The agency only sells time not sex. No fee for sex only the escorts time.

Click to expand...

There is also the bit about transporting someone to aid, abet, or assist them to engage in prostitution. That is a funny one because the act of prostitution itself is not illegal, but aiding/abetting/assisting it is. Maybe the agency would escape that, but the driver could get nailed.

Actually, the legal definition for "living off the avails" is:

Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house or in a house of assignation is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(j) and subsection (2).

Note that there is no mention of the age, health or nature of relationship of the person "living off the avails" in relations to the prostitute.

Technically, even though it is legal for me to BE a prostitute in Canada, it is illegal for my husband to be married to me.

If I was supporting an elderly parent, my infants or children, they would be in violation too.

That's the word of the law, but I sincerely doubt that it would ever be enforced that way.

Canadian law tends to be very broad to give the Crown and law enforcement the teeth to deal with serious problems -- such as a busy brothel located in a residential area or a pimp who is threatening and/or ensnaring young SPs with addictitve drugs.

Occasionally the "living off the avails" law is used against escort agencies -- and sometimes not rightly. But I doubt it would ever be used against the husband or boyfriend or other family member of an independent escort (unless she cooperated in bringing the charges).

..c..

JoyfulC said:

That's the word of the law, but I sincerely doubt that it would ever be enforced that way

Click to expand...

The problem with quoting legal statutes without also looking at the case law leads to the flow of misinformation

I have looked at case law.

You suggest that perhaps there's something out there I've missed. Can you cite some cases in which family members or spouses of SPs have been prosecuted under this law? I'd be interested to hear about any such case. (I don't know of any personally.)

..c..

HaywoodJabloemy said:

... or racketeering. For example, the $10,000 a year fee Toronto charges for a body-rub parlour licence could seem to be "protection money" to avoid criminal charges. They officially claim they don't license any business to provide sexual services, but it sure has that appearance.

Click to expand...

Even though we all know the reality, conceivably you could operate a body rub parlour without breaking any laws. Given that, the city has to make a choice if they are going to regulate them, and of course they decide to. The cost of licenses is suppose to cover the cost of the bylaw enforcement and the last I heard the cost of enforcing the body rub bylaw exceeds the revenue generated from the licences.

D i P,

Agenies are not within the "non-parasitical" exemption set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which essentially was designed to protect boyfriends and room-mates. All agencies which are "fronts for prostitution" are per se highly illegal.

Which makes the City of Calgary's licencing scheme pretty dubious. But I assume at the very least, it provides practical immunity from being busted for the agencies concerned - unless they are doing very wrong things re disease, minors or health risks.

JoyfulC said:

I have looked at case law.

You suggest that perhaps there's something out there I've missed. Can you cite some cases in which family members or spouses of SPs have been prosecuted under this law? I'd be interested to hear about any such case. (I don't know of any personally.)

Click to expand...

I am actually implying the opposite. It has been well discussed here in the past about how the courts have held that it had to be a "parasistic" relationship. The other thing that can cause confusion is that many do plead out who probably could have beaten the charges.

However, the current laws certainly allow the police to legally harass you by making charges that they even know probably would not hold up.

oagre said:

Which makes the City of Calgary's licencing scheme pretty dubious

Click to expand...

I have not read much about the Calgary situation but from what I have read the escorts have to work for an agency. If so, I surprised no one has challenged the bylaw. Essentially they are forcing a legal outcall escort to work for a company that is breaking the criminal code.

HaywoodJabloemy said:

Would that be a "rub & NO tug"?Wasn't that because they limit the number of the ten thousand dollar licences to 25, for no apparent reason, even though there's many times that number willing and able to pay for them?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but adding more just increases the costs

I do have my doubts about how they calculate the cost of enforcement though

dreamer said:

The other thing that can cause confusion is that many do plead out who probably could have beaten the charges.

Click to expand...

Then why would they plead out?

dreamer said:

However, the current laws certainly allow the police to legally harass you by making charges that they even know probably would not hold up.

Click to expand...

They allow them to do so, but they walk a thin line. If they ever challenge the wrong person -- such as someone with both a reasonable defense AND the resources to go the distance in a court of law -- they risk having a precedent set that would obstruct their ability to charge people under that law in the future.

And I think that's why it isn't done. Under the law, technically, what I do is legal. However, under the federal criminal code, it is illegal for my husband to be married to (or in a relationship) with me. I doubt that anyone would EVER dare to charge my husband because, if they did, both a precedent would be set in a federal court that would both render the current law impotent and would challenge the validity of the law.

I think we all here agree that it's crucial to have laws against true pimping. And I think we all here agree that SPs should have a right to enter into normal family relationships, just like any other working person.

What we need to get together on -- and get behind -- is some support for agencies. Although not all agencies are decent, agencies themselves serve a useful purpose in this business. Agencies should not be able to to be attacked simply because they're agencies -- there should be some universally recognized wrongdoing before they are.

Who among us hasn't worked for or used the services of an agency?

And yet it shocks me how often both SPs and hobbyists are willing to see agencies be the sacrificial lamb for some crown attorney or some municipal politian who are looking to make a public relations score.

I'm sure there are bad agencies -- but most are just looking to do their business in an honest and ethical way. They are a part of our industry -- and while I feel we all have an obligation to shut out bad agencies (just as we'd shut out bad SPs or bad hobbyists) -- I think we have an obligation to protect and defend the agencies that do their job without hurting anyone.

It's a slippery slope. If we accept them targetting agencies, we're next.

If we want to have our freedom, to do this thing, then we need to protect all those who do it -- within reasonable limits.

..c..

JoyfulC said:

Then why would they plead out?

Click to expand...

because it is easier and they would offer diversion programs where I believe you do not end up with a criminal record but they end up with a conviction