I got a question relating to law? Please read over!

[john frankly]

I got a question that I want people to try and answer for me? I also think it a legitimate one as well. If, Bawdy-houses, procurement, for prostitution and is an, offences related to the act of prostitution itself revolve around the issue of solicitation and the use of public space.
Below is a listed of what is legal according to police. However, Sexy 'swingers clubs' okay, Supreme Court rules
WHAT'S LEGAL AND NOT


BODY RUB PARLOURS

Legal, but ...
The city's municipal licensing and standards division said there are currently 25 body rub parlours that have operating licences. Both the owner and masseurs must have their own licences. Toronto Police said there must not be any prostitution on premises including topless, nude, body slide, reverse body slide, oral, intercourse or manual release. Massage room doors have to be unlocked.

STRIP CLUBS
Legal. Like body rub parlours both the owner/operator and dancers must have licences through MLS. If a dancer touches or allows a client to touch her -- even through clothing -- the dancer and establishment could both be charged under the bawdy house legislation. Municipal Licensing and Standards said the "lap dances can happen but there's not supposed to be any physical contact."

SWINGERS CLUBS
Legal. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada said activity at swingers clubs "can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society."
Most club owners will keep a list of members and, be discreet with their storefront and make sure everyone who enters the club knows what they're getting into -- possible consensual sex behind closed doors.

GAY AND LESBIAN BATHHOUSES
Legal. Peter Bochove of Spa Excess won a court case against the city of Toronto in 1988 when he found out they weren't renewing leases for bathhouses. There are no restrictions in zoning because they're not classed as "adult entertainment" so the city leaves charges in the hands of police under the Criminal Code for lewd activity.

Now my question:

Now for my question: Now if a group of prostitutes or even an escort agency open a club, called it a private members only lifestyle oriented establishment for the sexually open, each person was consenting to sexual activities.

Charged fees based membership, meaning club members, could visit as per say the kind of membership they choose. (Daily, visit, month, yearly, based on bronze, silver, gold and platinum) levels.

Now of course the location has to provide, saunas, tanning table, massage, showers, lockers, entertainment, dancing, dining and drinking a long with a back room area.

How could be deemed a bawdy house?

In fact the charge is for membership to the club only; and the people inside are employees who are consenting to sexual activities with their membership within certain boundaries.

In my opinion as long as these guide lines were followed and no money exchanged hands, but for membership per say; this, by passing current prostitution laws, and in fact legitimize it as long as it operates in this manner according to the Supreme Court of Canada?

Canada's top court says clubs that feature group sex and partner-swapping are perfectly legal. In its 7-2 decision released Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Canada said, because consensual sexual activity in a private club poses no threat to society, it shouldn't be considered criminal. The ruling sets a single standard, after lower courts went in opposite directions on two similar cases involving a pair of so-called 'swinger clubs' in Montreal.

As a result of this decision they have legitimatize private members only establishments for sexually consenting person.

Okay now I am hoping someone can explain this in their observation of it, but, in fact after long detail reading and question it is a clearly interesting argument.

 

[GOLEAFSGO67]

Its A Bawdy House Man

EXCHANGE OF MONEY FOR SERVICES!!


Unlike a swing club..where money is only for entry!!!

 

[john frankly]

Not if they were hired for this particulare job.

the Supreme Court of Canada said, because consensual sexual activity in a private club poses no threat to society, it shouldn't be considered criminal.

In its 7-2 decision released Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Canada said, because consensual sexual activity in a private club poses no threat to society, it shouldn't be considered criminal.

I still say it a good arguement and one worth looking, at, as for running a foul...this was just a question of interest..... but still I think the supreme court decision could stand for this as well, an rewrite the meaning of this law as well under the criminal code.

Criminal Code S. 197:

"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;

In my opinion this new ruling does in fact move this one into a state of contradiction, if the hostess were in fact agreeing and conscenting participates. Who can make claim they were or are in fact sp's, committing acts of indecency <---- already shot down by the upper court. When the club in essence would be legal under the supreme court, and since it is all agreed too by conscenting adults," the purpose of prostitution" <------ is removed!

Okay again re read what I wrote: No money changing hand for sex. LOL it a membership based club.....no where is there anyone paying openly for it. No different than a swingers club where people pay to go in and get some.

Still argumenative.

 

[mandrill]

Can you give me a link for the new decision?

 

[gramage]

Wait to see how the court rules on Alan Young's challenge of these laws (unless I missed it and this happened) they may not be an issue much longer.

 

[GirlFriends Toronto]

Wait to see how the court rules on Alan Young's challenge of these laws (unless I missed it and this happened) they may not be an issue much longer.

http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/83303ffe5af03ed585256ae6005379c9/46a38dd050268da3852575de004a5fbf!OpenDocument

 

[john frankly]

Here is the actual decision
Click this link to read

It clean.......

 

[john frankly]

I also agree with Alan Young in this case:

Their lawyer, Alan Young, a professor in York’s Osgoode Hall Law School, contends that the three laws are incompatible with the fact that prostitution is legal in Canada. The challenge contends that the prostitution laws violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person, by exposing sex workers to danger.

 

[john frankly]

Well that can pretty much pay their taxes now. Just write self employed and file them.

 

[gramage]

I also agree with Alan Young in this case:

Their lawyer, Alan Young, a professor in York’s Osgoode Hall Law School, contends that the three laws are incompatible with the fact that prostitution is legal in Canada. The challenge contends that the prostitution laws violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person, by exposing sex workers to danger.

I would not be surprised if he wins his case, at which time it will be interesting to see how the government reacts. Remember our constitution has a notwithstanding clause that if used can allow unjust laws to stay on the books, only needing to be renewed every 5 years

 

[john frankly]

Anyway I brought this up as see get the reviews of others. I have been basically doing some research for my own web site. On various topics in relation to laws and this was one that got my attention:

This is a brief insert from the topic I wrote:

In reality here I want to play the devils advocate for a few minutes. When we look at all this we can say, “The walls could tumble down on a lot of organization that are legal entities and practicing legitimate business.” Since they are taking money from these entities -- seen as living off the avails; and, procuring services for prostitutes.

Therefore, one would have to suggest. Prostitution should be legal in the same way swingers clubs are. Since people for thousands of years have been using their; services, even labeling them as service providers in the present. For example, “on premises swingers clubs have been Swingers clubs that feature group sex and partner-swapping are legal because they cause society no harm, the Supreme Court of Canada said Wednesday in a ruling that rewrote the definition of indecency.

"The 7-2 majority said the new determining factor will be whether the sexual behaviour in question causes harm, replacing the previous yardstick that the act must offend community standards of tolerance.

"This new harm-based approach strips of all relevance the social values that the Canadian community as a whole believes should be protected," said the lengthy dissent.

"The explicit sexual acts performed in the accused's establishments clearly offended the Canadian community standard of tolerance."

The ruling, which legal experts described as a liberal move, overturned the conviction of Montrealer Jean-Paul Lebaye. He was fined $2,500 for running a "common bawdy house" for the "practice of acts of indecency" after police busted his club, L'Orage, six years ago.

The question here for me is, if prostitutes, opens a club, sold alcohol, had entertainment, showers, saunas, tanning, security and back private rooms where no money changed hands for anything, but joining the privates members only club. How could this, be concluded as a bawdy house for them either. Since this would not in anyway be interfering with community standards. Would it not be provided, would not every member be participating out of free choice and desire to engage in agreed sexual encounters?

In all honesty would we not be able to say, “This legitimatize these services providers.” And in fact by them creating a business entity like this prostitution is in fact 100% legal by acting in this manner as a business? This simple play on words in according to the law justifies such clubs also.

In my opinion the supreme court of Canada, did in fact legalize prostitution in this argument. When they legalized swingers on premises clubs, and all escorts and prostitutes have to do is replace the terminology of words and call them, service providers.

In doing this one does not only remove the criminal participation and trafficking elements out of this. As now persons are legally entitle to enter into this field as specialized services workers. They may as well have to pay for licensing and as part of the provincial health regulation be made to have test on a regular cycle to ensure safety of staff, and cliental.

Realistically the supreme court of Canada has in fact grant legitimacy to these special care workers in the since all they have to do is set up a club and say, It’s a lifestyle oriented private members only club, and as such does not affect community standards, and we all must be tolerant of it.

Without reproach in this I must confess. The Supreme Court of Canada did in fact open a can of worms. They not only legalized, swingers on premises they in fact legalized prostitution or should I say,” specialized services worker,” and created a type of specialized services entity. Where private members only clubs of sexual consenting adult with further open minds can go and have sex. As long as, they pay their fees for each visit, monthly or yearly, thus removing the label of common bawdy house.

Personally this is an argument I would like seen put to the test in a superior court. After all it would be very interesting to see in out come.
Author

 

[Perry Mason]

Frankly, John, your argument is barely coherent.

And you are referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada released on Wednesday as if it were something new or recent... do you realize that was in 2005?

Read the dozens of other threads on this subject since that time and wake up! You are having a bad nightmare, that is all!

Perry

 

[john frankly]

I know it old, but it does make for debate. As for it being coherent. Subject is exactly this below...so someone got it.

it's conditionally consensual but maybe that's an argument all on its own

Never the less it should be legal.

 

[Moraff]

Firstly I think prostitution should be completely legalized with harsh penalties for those found to be forcing others into it.

But there is a major difference between a swinger club and the setup you are describing.

In the former, money is paid to the club to gain entry. The people that you may end up having consensual sex with are not employed by the club for this purpose (sure you may end up scoring with the hot bartender, but that's not what he was theoretically hired for)

In your setup while you are paying money to enter the club, the employees of that club have been hired to provide partners for the members.... hence it becomes a bawdy house.

 

[john frankly]

Personally this is an argument I would like seen put to the test in a superior court. After all it would be very interesting to see in out come.

 

[Moraff]

Personally this is an argument I would like seen put to the test in a superior court. After all it would be very interesting to see in out come.

Given the laws we currently have I don't think the outcome would neither take very long nor be very interesting for the reasons I just said above.

 

[gramage]

Never the less it should be legal.

Should be, might be after the case this fall, isn't.

 

[Anynym]

First thing when it comes to interpreting law: if the judge wants to see a situation as different from another, he/she will see it as different. Not because they are predisposed to do so, but because the arguments presented as differentiators are more persuasive than the contrary arguments.

One could argue that the SCoC decision made no mention of money, so if a girl went to a swingers club for financial gain it wouldn't invalidate the decision. But so far the consensus seems to be instead that financial gain would be a significant differentiator to the decision, and would likely lead to a different result. Certainly, it would seem to be enough to allow a lower court to not feel bound by the SCoC decision and to rule against a for-profit participation at a "swingers club".

Or, that the SCoC decision on Swingers Clubs should extend to allow contact in a Champagne Room where everyone is informed going in that contact might occur. But again, I am not aware of any Court agreeing with that opinion.

Law is opinion. That opinion is guided by other opinion, but at the end of the day, the investigating officer, prosecuting attorney, trial judge, appelate judge, etc must all be persuaded of the opinion or else we start talking about some other new court case.

 

[john frankly]

Okay! like I said," makes for a good argument LOL. Now can some one explain what the fuck he just said in English lOL

 

[john frankly]

Thanks...