Posted: Jun 18, 2008, 4:33 PM CST
lusciousmile wrote:'Be careful' about what????? A member of Cs publicly announced she owned a brothel and also said she was happy with her lifestyle. I and others commended and congratulated her for her attitude towards her cchoices, others did not. So, there's nothing for me to be careful about. Perhaps you could try to understand what a person is saying, exactly , before you them????
I was the one who said something to her...and I could care less what she does or owns...nobody was judging her for owning a brothel....She was proven to be a lier about owning one...that was the issue... posted the article in her brothel thread that shows in Canada...prostitution...therefore brothels are illegal here...Therefore the license she said she got...she never got because you can't get a license for something illegal....
Here's the sections of the Criminal Code of Canada which show it's illegal....
Section 210 of the Criminal Code contains the bawdy-house offence:
s. 210(1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
(2) Every one who
is an inmate of a common bawdy-house,
is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or
as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.(17)
Section 197(1) defines the relevant terms. “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 to practise acts of indecency. Courts have interpreted this to mean that any defined space is capable of being a bawdy-house, from a hotel, to a house, to a parking lot – provided that there is frequent or habitual use of it for the purposes of prostitution or for the practice of acts of indecency,(18) and the premises are controlled or managed by prostitutes or individuals with a right or interest in that space.(19) Further, the test used to determine whether an act is indecent is a community standard of tolerance.(20) Within this framework, the interpretation of indecency will depend on context, taking into account factors such as consent, the composition of any audience and the level of privacy of the room, community reputation of the place, and any harm caused.(21) For example, if the room is private, or if there is no actual physical contact between a client and an entertainer, then an act is less likely to be labelled “indecent.”(22)
Courts have also held that to be found guilty of keeping a common bawdy-house a person must have some degree of control over the care and management of the premises and must participate to some extent in the illicit activities involved there – although this does not necessarily mean participating in sexual acts.(23) A prostitute may even be found guilty of keeping a common bawdy-house where he or she has used his or her own residence alone for the purposes of prostitution.(24)
Alternatively, to be found guilty of being an “inmate” of a bawdy-house, a person must be a resident or a regular occupant of the premises. To be guilty of being “found in” a bawdy-house, a person must have no lawful excuse for his or her presence and must have been explicitly found there by the police at the time of raid.(25) Finally, courts have said that to be guilty of knowingly permitting the premises to be used for the purposes of a common bawdy house, a person must have actual control of the place and must have either acquiesced to or encouraged its use for that purpose.(26)
So you might want to find out what the real issue is the next time...a) before you blame the wrong person and b) before you find out what the real issue is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
