GTA massage parlour busts

[gala]

Gee, you should call the Edmonton Police Dept and tell them they don't know the law!

It doesn't surprise me that the police don't know the law

It is simply normal to include along with the extra fee that is paid for topless, nude, or nude-reverse all which are not violation of the Canadian Criminal Code (although may be licensing bylaw violations in some cities).

Things are not as tidy as that--the criminal code doesn't actually define what specific acts are outlawed, it just generally states "common bawdy house means a place that is kept or occupied, or resorted to by one or more persons for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency". It's that last bit, "acts of indecency", that might or might not cover topless, nude, nude-reverse, or HJ. It boils down to community standards, since since those shift over time it's always somewhat in doubt. At one point the police were laying charges against strip clubs on the grounds that it was indecent for a dancer to touch the customer at all, later it was lap dances, now we're talking about handjobs. So long as this vague language is on the books it takes case law to determine what is or isn't allowed, and even then it's a time-limited decision, as the prevailing attitudes may change.

I have never heard to word "handjob" from a body rub provider, yet it is always part of the massage. But it is not an "act" that is discussed for an extra price.

That only exempts it from a communication charge. It's still an act that is practiced, so the real question is whether it would be considered to be "indecent".

I realize these issues are about communicating not bawdy. But it seems like you rent a massage room by the door fee just like a hotel room.

A private apartment, a hotel room, any place can be a common bawdy house. Certainly if it's private that would spare you the communications charge.

In another section they do indicate that if the massage parlour is frequently and habitually used for the purposes of prostitution, massage parlours can be prosecuted under the bawdy law.

Yup.

So that leaves the "frequently and habitually used for the purpose of prostitution" issue.

It's important to use the actual language in the criminal code, rather than rely on the college dropouts at the Edmonton Police Dept.; the actual language includes the phrase "acts of indecency" in addition to prostitution.

I have searched and searched and can not find any report where the Courts have convicted a massasge provider under bawdy for simply a hj in a body rub.

I'm not aware of one either. But I don't like these situations in which the legal status of a common act is unknown and therefore still in theory risky. Just because the police are not laying charges now doesn't mean they won't ever--and that's troubling. It causes a lot of undue stress and anxiety for a lot of people who probably would follow the law if only someone would tell them what it was. The trouble is--nobody really knows.

In Canada, prostitution law enforcement tends to be complaint driven. The complaints are predominantly about street prostitution, not incall (bawdy houses) or agencies.

Sure. But you never know. Maybe there's a conservative family living next door and mom gets it into her head that little Jimmy ought not to be exposed to the nasty sort of things happening next door--so she calls in a complaint. OK, but sure, I agree it's much less common--in terms of the odds, the odds of getting charged are pretty low. Just, perhaps not zero.

I'm 100% in agreement with you that an incall environment would be safer, cleaner, and better for many SPs and probably for their customers as well. Outcall is fraught with many problems for the SP--and one huge advantage (that it is absolutely clearly legal).

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

gala...

Good points... you say:
It's that last bit, "acts of indecency", that might or might not cover topless, nude, nude-reverse, or HJ.

In the 1999 Canadian Supreme Court decision regarding lap dancing at Chez Jean-Pierre the issue was indecency and the community standards side of the bawdy house law. The Court held that lap dancing, nudity and touching including breast touching was NOT indecent. So if it is not indecent in a more open area of a strip club I would think that decision could be relied upoin in the privacy of a massage room.

The Supreme Court, which in 1997 declared that lap dancing at Cheaters Tavern in Toronto was indecent, took less than two hours in 1999 to conclude that the act in the Quebec bar wasn't as lewd.

The late justice John Sopinka ruled in June 1997 that Cheaters was degrading to women because of the oral sex and masturbation involved in the tavern's lap dancing.

It is now almost 7 years later. I wonder if oral sex and masturbation (which would include hand jobs) are still seen as degrading to women. I think society is evolving into a more liberal view of sexuality ... at least I hope so. More and more is being allowed on public TV at least in the U.S. I don't know about in Canada but whenever I am in Canada I see those late night very sexy ads for singles dating that are far more racy than anything run in the U.S.

I always "preach" don't do anything more than a handjob in a body rub, but I agree with you whether or not by community standards a hj is "indecent"is the legal issue.... I hope not ! It seems clear nudity is not indecent again by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in 1999.

You say, "A private apartment, a hotel room, any place can be a common bawdy house. Certainly if it's private that would spare you the communications charge"

But if its the customer that is paying for his hotel room, private apartment, or massage room (via entrance fee), he owns the right to the room, so the provider is thereby doing perfectly legal outcall...isn't she ? If they ever go after MPs for bawdy it would seem a slight change to have a room rental agreement for an hour just like a hotel, could solve the bawdy vs outcall issue.

I recall a strip club in Vancouver which actually connected to an actual hotel. For private dances, went thru some doors and up the stairs to a hotel room. They skipped the renting the room portion of the plot however. But again since so few bawdy charges against body rubs just for sex activities are being laid, hasn't been much of an issue for most.

I certainly agree it would be nice if the rules were more clear. But with so few bawdy busts and virtually all of them tossed out, unless more bawdy busts are made, it will remain unclear without a court challange once someone is convicted. The Crown . .. is that the right term... doesn't seem willing to appeal the few bawdy cases that come to trial and are sucessfully defended.

 

[gala]

Dave, I agree with pretty much everything you said WRT indecency: the Supreme court decision is an excellent guide and it does seem to mean that everything up to HJ is OK; it's at HJ where things become uncertain. It seems we can also conclude that oral/FS is NOT ok.

As for a private room not being a bawdy house: Here's my possibly incorrect understanding: I don't think it matters whose name is on the rental form if the primary purpose in renting it out to people is to provide a venue for indecent acts (whatever that means). Outcall escorts are legal precisely because the venue is NOT primarily for indecent acts or prostitution--the venue is your residence, and you would have been there no matter what, it's primary purpose is to provide you with a place to sleep and eat. In theory if you rented a room at the Marriot just to call prostitues it could be found to be a bawdy house; in practice if the police knock on your door and say it's one just tell them you're about to go to sleep, and to come back once you've had some rest.

The way you COULD swing it with a massage parlour is to argue that the private room was rented for the massage and that you would have been there anyway even if there were no indecent acts taking place. It'd be a tricky defense: if a judge or jury decided any reasonable person would think the place was rented to you primarily so you could participate in indecent acts they'd convict you. If most of the customers at the parlour just got a massage without the HJ, though, you could win.

In any case that's all academic. What really matters is what does and doesn't pass the community standards test. If a HJ in a massage room is not indecent then it's not a bawdy house even if the owner admits it's kept strictly for the purpose of providing HJ's.

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

bbking,

I don't know where you get your information but a hotel room rented by you is indeed a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The public areas of the hotel are just that, public. But your room is a private area rented by you with the same status as any private residence. The cops would have to have a search warrant to enter your room, the same as any private residence.

EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Dave, I agree with pretty much everything you said WRT indecency: the Supreme court decision is an excellent guide and it does seem to mean that everything up to HJ is OK; it's at HJ where things become uncertain. It seems we can also conclude that oral/FS is NOT ok.

In any case that's all academic. What really matters is what does and doesn't pass the community standards test. If a HJ in a massage room is not indecent then it's not a bawdy house even if the owner admits it's kept strictly for the purpose of providing HJ's.

Gala,

There is nothing in a Supreme court decision in Canada that says it is okay to give HJs at strip clubs or massage parlors.

With regards to the status of rooms rented in massage parlors, indeed it is academic. And the academics say that the massage parlors are not in the business of renting rooms as a primary place of your residence. In a legally licensed massage parlor, I can't fathom for instance why it would be legal to lock the massage room from the inside. All they have to do is find one act of prostitution on premises and indeed it is "academic" that you have been "found in". It will be up to the judge to explain your presence at said place.

EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Yes obviously incall is illegal in Canada, although rarely enforced. And yes at least you have legal outcall. But from what I read from Canadian sources the momentum is to eliminate or modify bawdy from the 1800s especially since more and more Canadians realize that safe legal incalls are far better than on the streets both for neighborhoods and the providers after so many killings of street hookers.

Dave,

The Canadian law is mindful of the fact that incalls conducted in residential areas are a nuisance to the neighboorhood. To the extent that an incall of this type has ever been busted, it has been due to a neighbors complaint. It would usually have to be obvious that there was a nuisance involved and some surveillance of the premises would most likely be performed prior to any kind of bust being conducted. Perhaps an undercover officer would conduct a sting by simply answering an ad. He could then simply bust the provider or provide her a warning on the spot. If she is giving massage, I believe there is a legal requirement that she be licensed in Toronto. If she is providing any sexual service for money, the case is prima facia.

EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

D

It's nice that people aren't being charged and prosecuted, but it's really not the same thing as decriminalizing it. Having all sorts of crimes defined that almost everyone is guilty of, and then selectively enforcing them is a form of persecution. It's how former communist-bloc nations controlled their citizenry while keeping up the appearance of a fair court: they locked people away in gulags for crimes they really DID commit--just, so did everyone else.

I agree with the previous poster: Either the police should enforce the law entirely, or the law should be removed from the books. If it's a bad law we ought not to have it; if it's worth having it's worth enforcing. If we're afraid that any change in the law would be for the worse than we should just be happy that in Canada at least outcall is legal.

Gala,

I wouldn't be so sweeping in your indictment of the incall law enforcement. Clearly not every act of every illegal activity on the books can be enforced. Things are mandated by Federal law and the localities have to set their enforcement priorities with respect to those things they feel are important. Speeding is illegal, yet it is selectively enforced. The laws do have a deterence factor built in, and yes they are on the books to modify behavior. That is the purpose of law. Murder is illegal, yet people can and do perpetrate that act every day. I would have to disagree with taking the incall provision off the books. It would be irresponsible to do that and not specify a means of regulating where such incall activity could be conducted. It may very well be self serving to the narrow minded interest of clientele who want incalls, but I notice that many of those who patronize such incall activity would not necessarily want that activity in appartments or residential neighborhoods in which they live. And for those who want prostitution out of sight, they are still quite mindful of the deliterious effects it has on quality of life and their enjoyment of their living environment. You could expect strong opposition to any law legalizing incalls if it did not have strict zoning requirements.

EBS

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

All they have to do is find one act of prostitution on premises and indeed it is "academic" that you have been "found in".

But for bawdy it has to be regularly used... one proven act is not enough. That is why it is so hard to get bawdy convictions since have to have testimony from some number more than one to establish regularly used for prostitution.

 

[gala]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression by saying the Supreme Court decision made it clear that everything "up to HJ" was OK: I didn't mean that to include HJ. I think HJ is undecided as of yet. Oral/FS has been ruled indecent, touching is OK, HJ would seem to be in the grey area in between.

I recall a ruling some years back that two people in an out of the way parked car did have an expectation of privacy, and a communications charge was dismissed on that basis. Given that, I find it difficult to believe that there is no similar expectation of privacy in a hotel. I am not sure on why a "notice" period is in any way relevant to "expectation of privacy", legally speaking. They'd have to knock at least!

As for decriminalizing incall and zoning: those are separate issues. Removing bawdy houses from the criminal code would not prevent municipalities from zoning or regulating them. Strip clubs are not criminal, and yet they are zoned, for example.

 

[candles]

I got busted - any ideas?

Hi guyz

i went to a MP in Markham (licensed) around 9pm on Thursday - the night of the raids. there were 2 of us... my friend waiting for me in the lounge and myself who went in. About 10 mins into the massage, (the girl hadn't even done anything); I heard a loud commotion - the girl walked out of the room to find out what was going on..so I naturally got off the table and put on my clothes.
A minute later, two plainclothes York Region office with flashlights opened my door and the other rooms and ordered everyone to get out of the rooms.

I put on my clothes and walked into the lounge and saw 3 guys and 2 ladies - they identified themselves as York Region and 2 Markham by-law officers. They asked us to sit down and give them a statement about what happened. They also pulled all the girls out.

I told the officers exactly what had happened - they asked me if I was aware the place was supposed to be closed after 9pm. (I said I did not - we were there at 9:10pm). They asked me if I paid the girl, how much ($40) and what happened - to which I truthfully told them that nothing happened b/c 10 mins into the massage they busted in. They asked for my drivers license and that of my friend, and then the female officer separated us and asked us 20 questions...i guess to see if our stories matched up.

Then they warned us that we would have to go to court to "testify" against the MP. I told them that nothing had happened, and that the girl was fully clothed giving me the massage (truth). The female officer said she didn't care..i was still going to court. There was another Oriental customer who was apparently in there with the girl Naked..so they asked him to leave and told him on the way out he was going to court as well.

I think we spent about 20 mins giving our statements and they let us go. The male officers were pretty cool..they said we wouldn't be charged.. but the female officer seemed pretty pissed off. I think she thought all guys that go there must be pigs or something.

Does anyone know if a conviction is possible for this? I mean, although nothing happened, the place is licensed (the officers confirmed that) - I was still caught with my "pants down" literally and that concerns me.

They also told my friend he'd be going to court too.

Anyhow.. i think i'll be laying low for a while.

later

~candles

 

[gala]

They might be able to summon you to give evidence, but I'd be surprised if they charge you with anything. You don't have to give any evidence unless they actually issue a summons. Wait until they do that, and if they do, contact a lawyer to help you--just to be safe.

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Next time something like this happens, before you answer too many questions ask them if they are going to charge you with anything. If they say no (or say they don't know) ask them if you are free to go (ask them that anyway). If you are not free to go, ask them what they want with you. The police cannot arbitrarily detain you--they can only keep you sitting there answering their questions if they suspect you of something or think that you were materially involved in a crime.

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

But for bawdy it has to be regularly used... one proven act is not enough. That is why it is so hard to get bawdy convictions since have to have testimony from some number more than one to establish regularly used for prostitution.

Dave,

You know like I do that if an undercover cop uncovers one instance of a girl giving a handjob at a massage parlor, it is like finding one roach. Where there is one there are many. Generally when these guys are interested in taking down the place, they will have numerous instances of violations. One can go by a definition or one can go by presumption. The standard of proof is not whether one believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the place was or is a legitimate massage parlor, the standard would be whether a reasonable person would believe that if they wanted a theraupetic massage that they would partronize the place. Few of these places would pass the laugh test. Once again, it is a moot point about what they need to prove. You know like I do that proof is not required to lay charges. Proof of some reasonable presumption required to convict.

EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Sorry EBS not in Canada - A hotel owner or their rep can be ask for access to any part of a Hotel, Motel by LE - if they refuse then a warrent would have to be requested but how many would refuse and when they open the door LE can do what they want. In Canada a Hotel, Motel is considered a service not a residence. I don't have access to it right now but I do know that this was used to arrested several members of the Controni crime family who where using the notorious lakeshore motel strip as their home away from home. No warrents where obtained and a court challange took place, and LE's actions where upheld. It's been awhile since I last stayed at a Hotel in Canada but I do rember a notice on the door with all sorts legal stuff on it - but I do rember something to the effect that the room and the material in it remain the property of the Hotel. EBS I know the US has very strong protections in this area but in Canada definitions as to what is classified as a residence is very narrow. Now on the upside, if a Hotel staff suspected that prostitution was going on - I doubt they would go to the police - it would bad for business if it got out publicly, they tend to try to handle it themselves either by screening known SPs or discussing it with the patron on checkout.

BBKing,

Let me not mince words here son...there is no difference in the treatment of a hotel room rented by a patron in Canada versus one rented in the US. Can I be any clearer than that? Your landlord be they a hotel proprietor or an apartment proprieter may provide access to a law enforcement individual at their discretion regardless to whether or not LE has a warrant or not. Do you understand that? I don't care what you call it, they are treated exactly the same.

What you propose here simply doesn't make sense given the misdeameanor stature of a prostitution crime. I do not know of either a landlord or a hotel proprietor that would allow a no knock entry of a room in which you are present unless he or she was presented with a warrant. If you are not physically present, then they are permitted to allow access. But who the hell would care if they were looking for prostitution activity..LOL. Hotel owners are not that stupid to involve themselves in a lawsuit, nor is LE prone to chase an action such as this to which they are not a party. That is to say, they would have to have had an officer inside the room who was party to the action to get any kind of reason to enter.


EBS

 

[gala]

Your landlord be they a hotel proprietor or an apartment proprieter may provide access to a law enforcement individual at their discretion regardless to whether or not LE has a warrant or not. Do you understand that? I don't care what you call it, they are treated exactly the same.

OK, I don't buy that, but for the sake of argument let's say that it's true: so what? The issue is not whether or not you might be caught in the act--the issue is that the act is simply NOT ILLEGAL in Canada.

There are only two things you could be charged with: communication, or being found in a bawdy house. If you were in private when you communicated (no matter what happens later) there's NO CRIME. A parked car has been ruled private enough. If the location is not primarily used for prostitution or indecent acts (like an ordinary hotel room where you are staying) then it's not a bawdy house and again there's NO CRIME. Prostitution in and of itself is 100% legal in Canada.

In Canada if the police knock on the door of your hotel room and ask what you are doing you can tell them you've hired an escort, you've paid her, you're about to have sex, and now would they please get the hell out and leave you alone: you have committed NO CRIME, so you can tell them to bug off.

What you propose here simply doesn't make sense given the misdeameanor stature of a prostitution crime.

This is how I know you are American. First, there are no "misdemeanor" crimes in Canada. That's an American concept. We have "summary" and "indictable" offenses here which are not really the same thing. Second, prostitution is not a crime in Canada. Communicating in public, living off the avails (american term: pimping), keeping or being found in a bawdy house (american word: brothel) are criminal, but prostitution itself--sex for money--is a legitimate, legal activity everywhere in Canada.

 

[Sabuk]

All this talk about checking MP & MPA's Licences...

Does anyone here even know how a real one looks like?

 

[gala]

BBKing: Yeah, a hotel being used by an escort for multiple clients is a bawdy house. What matters is not the kind of place you are in, but the reason why the place is kept. As for shouting at LE, shouting at them is probably a bad idea. But if you haven't done anything illegal, which is ordinarily the case with outcall, you have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

 

[gala]

Pally: Yeah, in theory it could be. The problem is that it would be too difficult for the police to prove that you had no other purpose in keeping the room, especially if you kept it for just one or two days. If raided, all you'd have to do is say you thought you would sleep there, and suddenly the primary purpose was a place to reside so it's not a bawdy house. They'd pretty much need to get you to sign a confession saying you had no intention of staying there, you only wanted to use it to call prostitutes, in order to convict--so I think that's why you don't see cases. But yes, in theory, they could. It'd be a more realistic case for the police if you kept an apartment for a long time that you only ever used to call prostitutes and never otherwise resided in. Still it'd be tough, but at least then they could point to a pattern of use. They'd have to commit a lot of resources to catching you, and you would again claim that you sometimes slept there or that you kept it for guests, and the crown would have to show that wasn't a believable story in order to convict you. But, in theory, they could.

They could also convict an escort who rented a room just once for each client if they could show that each room was rented for the sole purpose of prostitution--in the case of the escort it might be easier to make the case: who really needs to rent five hotel rooms in one day? So it's probably better if the client rents the room... though so far as I know the police have never tried to prosecute on this basis, and at the moment don't even seem to have the will to go after more obvious incall operations.

 

[RawbRt]

I think it's amazing that the media and police are presenting this as a successful venture. of the more than 1000 women checked for age and immigration status, only 5 under 18 (all over 16) and 22 with questionable legal status. what a waste of time and money. no evidence of force or coercion.

 

[RawbRt]

massage parlours are charged almost daily with bawdy house charges - to the point that it's not news. it's more bang for their investigative buck than going after an independant incall: they can charge everybody (working) there as inmates, clients as found-ins, whoever owns or manages for keeping, living on the avails, etc.

as a matter of fact, the "indecent acts" provision of the bawdy house section was added to address massage parlours before the case law decided that a hand-job was an act of prostitution.

there will likely be some major police activity around GTA massage parlours in the next few weeks and months now that they have so much info on the spots, who's working, etc.