Is MP a Public Place?

[TeasePlease]

In regards to bylaw zoning, a registered daycare or church is something we can't be near. But a place of worship or gathering place doesn't qualify. We also aren't near houses so even an unregistered daycare or nanny don't affect us either.

Yes, a true church or temple registers with the city. Similar to how a charity registers as a non-profit.

I was clarifying the bylaw zoning. C-36 doesn't mention churches, for example.

I thought we were talking about C36. C-36 doesn't mention churches, but it does mention religious institutions. The wording is very broad.

"in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present"

That could include toy stores, paeditrican's offices, whatever. As you know, compliance with bylaws is not a valid defense against a criminal charge.

I'm not going to name names. Having one MP owner annoyed with me is plenty enough

I struck out the word 'room', because certain parts of hotels, like certain parts of MPs—lobbies, corridors, shared facility areas—are indeed very public while other parts—the assigned rooms guests rent—come with certain expectations of privacy. Numerous legal cases have defined that privacy right for hotels. I'm not so sure privacy rights have ever been established for massage spaces. Certainly the bylaws that prohibit MP door locks in some municipalities would arise from an opposite view.

Good point. IMO, a MP room should be quite analogous to a hotel room, with the same expectations of privacy.

I would caution that C-36 doesn't criminalize just what might happen inside the room. The preamble to 286.1 refers to obtaining or communicating for purposes of obtaining. Some of those discussions happen in MP reception areas. But, that shouldn't matter either so long as it happens inside the four walls of the MP and is not visible to the outside. I guess there's some merit to following bylaws about advertising.

 

[oldjones]

Licensed body rub parlours are not near those things. A body rub parlour is a public place. The treatment rooms are private.

Just like hotels. Although in neither sorts of establishment does the renter's rightful expectation of privacy exclude certain entry by management, staff or others they permit. Hotel rooms have had their attached privacy rights, and requirements for stuff like search warrants, defined in case-law over many years. MP rooms could be considered similar, but the argument would have to be settled by a court.

 

[oldjones]

I agree with MPASquared that a licensed BR parlour is nowhere near a place where children are expected to be.

Even if it may be considered a public place, it isn't in the context of Bill C-36 IMHO.

I think if one reads that section of the law (quoted in the OP) correctly it is not prohibiting any business location. That's a local zoning matter, and well outside any federal criminal jurisdiction.

What it is doing is refining the definition of a public place where sex-acts are prohibited and paid ones are criminal. The words make sex in your private hotel room at SkyDome criminal, unless the curtains are closed. And they apply to what you and your outcall get up to in your house next to the park, if you didn't close those drapes either. The operative words are: "…open to public view"; the other words just clarify that there needn't be any 'public' present, as long as they could be.

 

[MPAsquared]

I thought we were talking about C36. C-36 doesn't mention churches, but it does mention religious institutions. The wording is very broad.

"in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present"

That could include toy stores, paeditrican's offices, whatever. As you know, compliance with bylaws is not a valid defense against a criminal charge.

I'm not going to name names. Having one MP owner annoyed with me is plenty enough



Good point. IMO, a MP room should be quite analogous to a hotel room, with the same expectations of privacy.

I would caution that C-36 doesn't criminalize just what might happen inside the room. The preamble to 286.1 refers to obtaining or communicating for purposes of obtaining. Some of those discussions happen in MP reception areas. But, that shouldn't matter either so long as it happens inside the four walls of the MP and is not visible to the outside. I guess there's some merit to following bylaws about advertising.

Keep up. Pple above were mixing the 2. I was clarifying the bylaws.

 

[bobcat40]

You have no idea what you are talking about. I worked in the entertainment industry for 15 years here and the US. Let me tell what kind of special relations Law enforcement and bylaw have with The Fire Department (FIRE CODE), and of course our friends and the city or (BUILDING CODE). They use these partnerships to their advantage to shut you down if you think you are a smart ass operator, or someone they simply deem as unfit to run or own a night club. Just like the relationship that bylaw has with police with respect to massage parlors.

First, I made my comment in more a general sense. In most situations, police are most definitely not involved in enforcing building and fire codes - your examples are extreme situations. With respect to massage parlours in Toronto, police are actually called upon to sometimes enforce the bylaw themselves and are commonly in joint operations with police. This relationship is definitely quite different than the ones you are referring to. So yes in a manner of speaking I do think I know what I am talking about.

As for BRPs near a church, there are actually a few down the street from Perla...

And to answer the question of whether or not MPs are public places, the answer is clearly yes. It is for this reason bylaw have the authority to both enter the bylaw parlour itself and all treatment rooms at any time of the MPs operation. Bylaw's cannot authorize LE to enter "private" spaces. The bylaw itself makes this quite clear.

As for this stuff:

Well then you would know it was a fight about being a public nuisance. Not about prostitution.**

Police & bylaw work together on a lot of things. Everything from adult businesses to night clubs to casinos to taxi cabs.**

C-36 has zero to do with when a brp or holistic spa closes.**

When a bylaw is argued up levels of court & appeals, the bylaw is in essence "stayed" or paused. We aren't breaking bylaws, we are fighting a bylaw clause.**

(aren't you glad I'm back from vacation? Must have been a quiet 10days without my comments hehehe) ‎

I urge you to read the case from Vaughan here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj643/2013oncj643.html

Suppressing crime is a form of reducing nuisance. They are quite similar and complimentary spheres of legislation. I doubt you will find anyone that doesn't find crime to be a nuisance...You are right in saying that police and bylaw do work together on a lot of things but not quite the same way with the sex industry. C-36 doesn't have anything to directly to do with bylaws but it very much does indirectly. Just because a bylaw is being challenged doesn't mean you are granted an injunction against the bylaw. It is doubtful that any judge would grant this - especially in your instance where the precedent is already set as a loss at the highest court of the province. If a judge just automatically granted an injunction against any bylaw once it was being challenged, every business would just challenge and appeal every bylaw for the free immunity given just for filing some paperwork.

 

[wanttodo]

I think if one reads that section of the law (quoted in the OP) correctly it is not prohibiting any business location. That's a local zoning matter, and well outside any federal criminal jurisdiction.

What it is doing is refining the definition of a public place where sex-acts are prohibited and paid ones are criminal. The words make sex in your private hotel room at SkyDome criminal, unless the curtains are closed. And they apply to what you and your outcall get up to in your house next to the park, if you didn't close those drapes either. The operative words are: "…open to public view"; the other words just clarify that there needn't be any 'public' present, as long as they could be.

The new law makes all sex that is paid for illegal in ANY place (public, in public view or private). If the drapes are closed in the Skybox, a crime is still being committed if you pay for sex in there, even though the public cannot see inside the room. Being in public view would qualify the defendant to the higher minimum punishment.

 

[TeasePlease]

The new law makes all sex that is paid for illegal in ANY place (public, in public view or private). If the drapes are closed in the Skybox, a crime is still being committed if you pay for sex in there, even though the public cannot see inside the room. Being in public view would qualify the defendant to the higher minimum punishment.

C-36 has many parts, not varying degrees of a single crime.

 

[HentaiRanger]

C-36 has many parts, not varying degrees of a single crime.

I went to one twice this week and got massage, free Japanese language conversation after the session, since we.were taking the same train home.
it is nice to talk to the ladies off clock regular ciliviNs. it is like a GFE for me.

i didnt see any police near by the Spa. Before i used.to.go to incalls with walking distance.of college police station. perhaps the police just havent launched.an offensive yet or.wont .....who knows？？？？

 

[TeasePlease]

Generally speaking, the police are not obligated to announce enforcement strategies. They might (like R.I.D.E. for deterrent effect), but they usually don't. They also don't normally announce that they will NOT enforce a law (that's the weird thing about being a sworn member of a police service. You take an oath to uphold the law; not the laws you like. Of course, reality in practice may be quite different...like say abortion).

But, I wonder if there's another legal principle that we can use. It's well established in tax law that rules must be clear so that taxpayers can plan their affairs accordingly. Uncertainty is unfair. Selective and inconsistent enforcement of C-36 creates an environment of uncertainty. Ergo....

 

[wanttodo]

Generally speaking, the police are not obligated to announce enforcement strategies. They might (like R.I.D.E. for deterrent effect), but they usually don't. They also don't normally announce that they will NOT enforce a law (that's the weird thing about being a sworn member of a police service. You take an oath to uphold the law; not the laws you like. Of course, reality in practice may be quite different...like say abortion).

But, I wonder if there's another legal principle that we can use. It's well established in tax law that rules must be clear so that taxpayers can plan their affairs accordingly. Uncertainty is unfair. Selective and inconsistent enforcement of C-36 creates an environment of uncertainty. Ergo....

Since purchasing sex has never been a crime in Canada before C36, wouldn't it be a valid question for media to ask TPS what their stance is on enforcing C36 regarding consenting adults? Underage, trafficking, is a different matter and should be prosecuted.

 

[stay]

Generally speaking, the police are not obligated to announce enforcement strategies. They might (like R.I.D.E. for deterrent effect), but they usually don't. They also don't normally announce that they will NOT enforce a law (that's the weird thing about being a sworn member of a police service. You take an oath to uphold the law; not the laws you like. Of course, reality in practice may be quite different...like say abortion).

But, I wonder if there's another legal principle that we can use. It's well established in tax law that rules must be clear so that taxpayers can plan their affairs accordingly. Uncertainty is unfair. Selective and inconsistent enforcement of C-36 creates an environment of uncertainty. Ergo....

was it not a MP in vaughan argued that they were discriminated against in regards to hours of operation.
I have to ignore escorts as they are not a licensed business. How is it possible that say one SC has fs activity while another doesn't or one MP offering fs while another doesn't. we are not even talking about across the country, this is within driving distance. I believe if there wasn't laws ALL sc and mp would be fs. Maybe it is time for some of the girls to move on to another occupation.

whether it is true or not years ago several girls in a sc told me that I needn't worry, LE doesn't bother them, yet another SC in the same jurisdiction had regular visits. To me it screams of something.

TP and Grip... does the sig work for you now... lol

 

[TeasePlease]

Since purchasing sex has never been a crime in Canada before C36, wouldn't it be a valid question for media to ask TPS what their stance is on enforcing C36 regarding consenting adults? Underage, trafficking, is a different matter and should be prosecuted.

No one is saying that those aren't valid questions. C-36 makes no distinction for consenting adults so what would you expect them to say? You're questioning policy not enforcement.

 

[TeasePlease]

was it not a MP in vaughan argued that they were discriminated against in regards to hours of operation.
I have to ignore escorts as they are not a licensed business. How is it possible that say one SC has fs activity while another doesn't or one MP offering fs while another doesn't. we are not even talking about across the country, this is within driving distance. I believe if there wasn't laws ALL sc and mp would be fs. Maybe it is time for some of the girls to move on to another occupation.

whether it is true or not years ago several girls in a sc told me that I needn't worry, LE doesn't bother them, yet another SC in the same jurisdiction had regular visits. To me it screams of something.

TP and Grip... does the sig work for you now... lol

You raise some interesting thoughts. Firstly, I agree that there is huge variation in practice. That's why its dangerous to believe that going to a "licensed" MP or SC is safe. Safe from what?

In my experience, unusually frequent LE visits are because an establishment is known for being particularly "fun", or is cozy with LE...both of which may be risky.

 

[wanttodo]

No one is saying that those aren't valid questions. C-36 makes no distinction for consenting adults so what would you expect them to say? You're questioning policy not enforcement.

Yes, the uncertainty in enforcement regarding consenting adults in Toronto will keep this C36 subforum active. I believe police in other major Canadian cities have made statements about the direction of enforcement regarding C36...MERB and PERB have much less discussion about C36.

 

[MPAsquared]

First, I made my comment in more a general sense. In most situations, police are most definitely not involved in enforcing building and fire codes - your examples are extreme situations. With respect to massage parlours in Toronto, police are actually called upon to sometimes enforce the bylaw themselves and are commonly in joint operations with police. This relationship is definitely quite different than the ones you are referring to. So yes in a manner of speaking I do think I know what I am talking about.

As for BRPs near a church, there are actually a few down the street from Perla...

And to answer the question of whether or not MPs are public places, the answer is clearly yes. It is for this reason bylaw have the authority to both enter the bylaw parlour itself and all treatment rooms at any time of the MPs operation. Bylaw's cannot authorize LE to enter "private" spaces. The bylaw itself makes this quite clear.

As for this stuff:



I urge you to read the case from Vaughan here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj643/2013oncj643.html

Suppressing crime is a form of reducing nuisance. They are quite similar and complimentary spheres of legislation. I doubt you will find anyone that doesn't find crime to be a nuisance...You are right in saying that police and bylaw do work together on a lot of things but not quite the same way with the sex industry. C-36 doesn't have anything to directly to do with bylaws but it very much does indirectly. Just because a bylaw is being challenged doesn't mean you are granted an injunction against the bylaw. It is doubtful that any judge would grant this - especially in your instance where the precedent is already set as a loss at the highest court of the province. If a judge just automatically granted an injunction against any bylaw once it was being challenged, every business would just challenge and appeal every bylaw for the free immunity given just for filing some paperwork.

That's the difference between reading and practicing. You can read all the reports you want, but I live & breathe this stuff everyday. I know when things are put on "hold" so to speak, I share lawyers with certain folks, we all meet & discuss progress & problems. As usual, you don't agree with me. That's cool. Keep reading . I'll keep experiencing it all 1st hand & trust my know-how/sources/facts much much much more. **‎

You raise some interesting thoughts. Firstly, I agree that there is huge variation in practice. That's why its dangerous to believe that going to a "licensed" MP or SC is safe. Safe from what?

In my experience, unusually frequent LE visits are because an establishment is known for being particularly "fun", or is cozy with LE...both of which may be risky.

That's old news, old ways. Things have changed over the past few yrs in bylaw-land. Doesn't work that way anymore. ‎Safe from harassment, tickets, charges. Its not just about licensed, it's about clean/sober/law-abiding businesses. Which are not one in the same.

Yes, the uncertainty in enforcement regarding consenting adults in Toronto will keep this C36 subforum active. I believe police in other major Canadian cities have made statements about the direction of enforcement regarding C36...MERB and PERB have much less discussion about C36.

Uncertainty? How so? Tps don't need to speak. Wynne took care of that. For now.

 

[bobcat40]

That's the difference between reading and practicing. You can read all the reports you want, but I live & breathe this stuff everyday. I know when things are put on "hold" so to speak, I share lawyers with certain folks, we all meet & discuss progress & problems. As usual, you don't agree with me. That's cool. Keep reading . I'll keep experiencing it all 1st hand & trust my know-how/sources/facts much much much more. **‎

Pretty much why I and probably others don't agree with much of what you say is pretty simple. Much of what is said on your part is obviously biased due to your business interests. It further, rarely has much logical or factual basis. Every point I make is either quite logically inclined and I do put reference sources to back up what I say. Almost all your rebuttals rely on your "inside and first hand knowledge" which doesn't exactly sound compelling. Your arguments are almost like saying "I'm right because I know better than you".

It doesn't exactly take a legal genius to figure out that an injunction against a bylaw is automatically granted by a court for merely filing the paperwork for a bylaw challenge. If that were true, holistic spas would just file the paperwork saying they should be allowed to open until whenever and be nude; they could start doing this tomorrow once they file the paperwork as the law would be "stayed"? Does this make any sense to you? Everyone would be doing this for every Toronto bylaw they found inconvenient. You can preach your inside knowledge all you want, it just doesn't fly both logically and legally. It's probably that the City is continuing to enforce as it is their power to do so - but they are halting the licensing tribunals and staying the bylaw charges until the conclusion of the court challenge. That is completely different than insinuating there is some kind of legal injunction preventing them for enforcing or that the bylaw is off the books.

And if your lawyers are telling you that they think you actually have a great chance of winning then I would suggest they aren't exactly being most truthful with you. With the precedent set at the highest court of the province, it's going to be hard enough to even establish a prima facie case.

 

[MPAsquared]

Pretty much why I and probably others don't agree with much of what you say is pretty simple. Much of what is said on your part is obviously biased due to your business interests. It further, rarely has much logical or factual basis. Every point I make is either quite logically inclined and I do put reference sources to back up what I say. Almost all your rebuttals rely on your "inside and first hand knowledge" which doesn't exactly sound compelling. Your arguments are almost like saying "I'm right because I know better than you".

It doesn't exactly take a legal genius to figure out that an injunction against a bylaw is automatically granted by a court for merely filing the paperwork for a bylaw challenge. If that were true, holistic spas would just file the paperwork saying they should be allowed to open until whenever and be nude; they could start doing this tomorrow once they file the paperwork as the law would be "stayed"? Does this make any sense to you? Everyone would be doing this for every Toronto bylaw they found inconvenient. You can preach your inside knowledge all you want, it just doesn't fly both logically and legally. It's probably that the City is continuing to enforce as it is their power to do so - but they are halting the licensing tribunals and staying the bylaw charges until the conclusion of the court challenge. That is completely different than insinuating there is some kind of legal injunction preventing them for enforcing or that the bylaw is off the books.

And if your lawyers are telling you that they think you actually have a great chance of winning then I would suggest they aren't exactly being most truthful with you. With the precedent set at the highest court of the province, it's going to be hard enough to even establish a prima facie case.

I expect that to be your interpretation. However logic should supersede your weak arguments. If there is a court case, would it really be smart of me to discuss the particulars of said case? Or keep my mouth shut similar to how the press can't post certain details? Think things through a bit honey.**

You can discredit me all you'd like, but when bylaw visit my spa, guess who talks to the officers? Me. Not you. Do you know which spas & what tickets get laid or dropped or stayed? I do. I also know that it changes. Often. And guess what, I get informed of said changes.**

As for the past cases fighting Toronto closing hrs, there were a lot of extreme & rare circumstances in the original battle. Errors, mistakes, and lawyer drama. Hardly a precedent. Your example of Vaughan is a good one; completely different city, but a good example none the less. You want past cases of success? Well, read your link. Lol. Read about Brampton as well.**

You're crazy to think a holistic owner who spends a few hundred bucks annually would fight a bylaw. Do u know how much that costs? If they lose, they get shut down. They become focus #1 for enforcement. And their hush-hush misuse of licensing would become the spotlight. How do I know? I worked in holistic spas my entire career. 8yrs to be exact.**

When I post on terb, I'm on my cell. I don't have time to search out links for you that you can easily google yourself. If I could, I'd invite you to join the BRP owners meetings with the city so you could know "the inside scoop" too. But that would cost you what every other owner has invested to get such privy info (have $200,000-$800,000 lying around?). To simply say my real-time knowledge has no basis makes zero sense. You mis-quote things, use the wrong cities as examples, and have a general tone of dislike in your responses to me. It's laughable & highlights the fact that you get disgruntled. You shouldn't take a political debate so personally honey.**

So, you want to know what's "stayed" & what isnt...call ML&S and ask them. It's a free country. Do the legwork to back up your argument. I have. And you throw stones. You quote the media & act like it's checkmate hahaha. Remember sweetie, not everything you read is true. But what you live, breathe, and see with your own eyes is real. Spend a day in my shoes before you go throwing stones.**

I know for a fact what is happening in regards to closing hrs & enforcement of such. I know for a fact which officers have what moral discretion. I know which areas focus on which infractions. And I get called when someone moves around. I pay the lawyer bills & read the reports after a ticket is argued/dropped/charged. I meet with bylaw & police weekly. I speak to them several times/week. Not even your little links know what I know.**

I've never denied I have a bias. But that bias goes several ways. Bias for vested interest. Bias for protection of our clientele. Bias for inside information. And bias thru 15yrs of practical, not just theory.**

What's your story? I'm an open book. U just throw mud. The playground is outside honey. Let the adults discuss here. **‎

 

[oldjones]

The new law makes all sex that is paid for illegal in ANY place (public, in public view or private). If the drapes are closed in the Skybox, a crime is still being committed if you pay for sex in there, even though the public cannot see inside the room. Being in public view would qualify the defendant to the higher minimum punishment.

As I said. The OP's question was about the definition of 'public', which has now been thoroughly clarified.

In a SkyBox, as anywhere, there must be a party who initiates charges based on some knowledge, and in a truly private place, with all parties properly happy with the exchange such a person should be very hard to find. As long as the door's closed and the curtains drawn.

But if that outcall escort thinks you cheated her …. It won't matter you were both in your private condo, curtains closed or not.

 

[bobcat40]

I expect that to be your interpretation. However logic should supersede your weak arguments. If there is a court case, would it really be smart of me to discuss the particulars of said case? Or keep my mouth shut similar to how the press can't post certain details? Think things through a bit honey.**

You can discredit me all you'd like, but when bylaw visit my spa, guess who talks to the officers? Me. Not you. Do you know which spas & what tickets get laid or dropped or stayed? I do. I also know that it changes. Often. And guess what, I get informed of said changes.**

As for the past cases fighting Toronto closing hrs, there were a lot of extreme & rare circumstances in the original battle. Errors, mistakes, and lawyer drama. Hardly a precedent. Your example of Vaughan is a good one; completely different city, but a good example none the less. You want past cases of success? Well, read your link. Lol. Read about Brampton as well.**

You're crazy to think a holistic owner who spends a few hundred bucks annually would fight a bylaw. Do u know how much that costs? If they lose, they get shut down. They become focus #1 for enforcement. And their hush-hush misuse of licensing would become the spotlight. How do I know? I worked in holistic spas my entire career. 8yrs to be exact.**

When I post on terb, I'm on my cell. I don't have time to search out links for you that you can easily google yourself. If I could, I'd invite you to join the BRP owners meetings with the city so you could know "the inside scoop" too. But that would cost you what every other owner has invested to get such privy info (have $200,000-$800,000 lying around?). To simply say my real-time knowledge has no basis makes zero sense. You mis-quote things, use the wrong cities as examples, and have a general tone of dislike in your responses to me. It's laughable & highlights the fact that you get disgruntled. You shouldn't take a political debate so personally honey.**

So, you want to know what's "stayed" & what isnt...call ML&S and ask them. It's a free country. Do the legwork to back up your argument. I have. And you throw stones. You quote the media & act like it's checkmate hahaha. Remember sweetie, not everything you read is true. But what you live, breathe, and see with your own eyes is real. Spend a day in my shoes before you go throwing stones.**

I know for a fact what is happening in regards to closing hrs & enforcement of such. I know for a fact which officers have what moral discretion. I know which areas focus on which infractions. And I get called when someone moves around. I pay the lawyer bills & read the reports after a ticket is argued/dropped/charged. I meet with bylaw & police weekly. I speak to them several times/week. Not even your little links know what I know.**

I've never denied I have a bias. But that bias goes several ways. Bias for vested interest. Bias for protection of our clientele. Bias for inside information. And bias thru 15yrs of practical, not just theory.**

What's your story? I'm an open book. U just throw mud. The playground is outside honey. Let the adults discuss here. **‎

Lol there's a lot of interesting things you said but I can tell you that I don't take this conversation personally or am any way disturbed by it. It would appear from your many responses, you are the one that is in fact upset. I am quite confident in much of what I say, despite not having the supposed inside track that you claim to have. Anyone who has even the smallest degree of common sense can come to the conclusion that:
1) Your arguments aren't logical
2) Your stance appears and is quite biased due to your business interests
3) The credibility of your "experience and inside sources" without anything else backing it up is questionable due to your biases. It's like in the 80s when tobacco companies said there were no health risks to smoking as their own research and lawyers had told them so.

I have no doubt you are an activist in the field but that doesn't qualify you to be a legal expert, nor does it entitle you to make blanket statements about how you are 100% compliant with the law. I would be willing to bet if there was a poll on this thread to see how many people who believe your business is 100% compliant with C-36 and the bylaws the majority would doubt this is true. Why? Because they all know that is is entirely illogical that Muse doesn't sell sexual services or follows the requirements to both be properly clothed and closed at 9pm. Clients may not entirely care, but that is a different story all together.

You are right in saying that Brampton and Vaughan won but their evedentiary record is completely different than for Toronto. Also, in their cases they never lost at the court of appeal. Not exactly the same thing...

The "mud" I am said to spew is as clear as water. You quote "I've never denied I have a bias. But that bias goes several ways. Bias for vested interest. Bias for protection of our clientele. Bias for inside information. And bias thru 15yrs of practical, not just theory", can just be translated to say "Hey I own a spa and I will do and say anything to protect it". And for the rest of your post of arrogance and "I'm right because I know better than you" attitude - I really couldn't care less as there isn't a single verifiable "fact" in your entire post. Maybe you'll confuse some of the less intelligent people here but most can discern that there's not much substance other than you saying:

"Hey everyone, everything is alright as muse because I said so. Even though what I say doesn't make sense, I assure you I've spoken to cops and government officials. I have 15 years in the industry to back up my claims. Even though ya'll come to my commercial establishment to receive sexual services, in no way shape or form is the law which criminalizes the purchase of sexual services being broken. No way guys, nothing to worry about".

My quote above basically sums up what you've been saying all this time and my thoughts to the contrary are quite clear. As for my story, no I don't speak to police officials every week about Body Rub Parlours. In fact, I also admit I have not been in the industry for 15 years. I consider myself to be a very well educated professional who finds that your "story" seems to have many holes and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I think if one reads that section of the law (quoted in the OP) correctly it is not prohibiting any business location. That's a local zoning matter, and well outside any federal criminal jurisdiction.

What it is doing is refining the definition of a public place where sex-acts are prohibited and paid ones are criminal. The words make sex in your private hotel room at SkyDome criminal, unless the curtains are closed. And they apply to what you and your outcall get up to in your house next to the park, if you didn't close those drapes either. The operative words are: "…open to public view"; the other words just clarify that there needn't be any 'public' present, as long as they could be.

I agree with you but there are a few operative words (ie., public place where children are present).

Even Muse has a sign restricting entry to persons 18 and over. The other words are 'reasonably expected'. There's no reasonable expectation that a child will be close to that business.