CAMPUS Bar in Montreal

[SirBillybob]

Anyway, what this discussion on drugs and manage style has nothing to do with is this ...

 

Physique competitor Chris was back last night after a year off. He is 6’3 mixed race, hot AF, and made me very happy . He trains wisely, has packed on muscle mass slowly patiently and steadily age 19-22. Great fun in private.

[jacksfo]

I visited Campus this week on Monday night and Tuesday afternoon. Both time, the place was dead with maybe 6-8 customers. Only 4 dancers with one show every 30 minutes. I left after an hour. I’ve heard that patronage of the strip bars have declined dramatically because it’s easier to hire through the internet. Also, the village is quite deserted with many closed storefronts.

[SirBillybob]

The clubs were very busy last night (Fri). I don’t know what was going on on the strip under the rainbow canopy. It was packed with people even though rather cool. No apparent defined festival. Maybe it was a composite of college/unit students early in the term taking in the last of the pedestrian zone and the permanent end of the installation.

[SirBillybob]

I knew that dancers are not actually employed by the bar and pay to work there, but I never fully understand the legal reasons for the arrangement. Now I do. Thank-you.

 

It seems that the arrangement has worked for years. Customers have come for the hot dancers and dancers have come because that's where they customers are. But now, if its no longer working, something must have changed. Any idea what that is?

 

——-

 

I think that there are a lot of factors at play, not the least of which is perspective.

 

I live here, have gone to Campus for nigh on 20 years, and have never experienced enough afternoon selection or quality to take a private during the early evening shift. I think, though, the inventory has dwindled overall both shifts.

 

Like I said, song/dong rates doubled during great econ times just prior to the Sept 2008 market plummet, a little less exaggerated than the new film Hustlers, but the change was palpable.

 

I do not find assertions of more recent very marked decline particularly relatable. I have for decades witnessed the contrast between off days and big crowds, without any clear explanation.

 

I do note that there is a manifold increase in appealing RM ads the last few years, when in the past just a handful. The cost of an escort hire can fall short of the rapidly escalating song tally in a club private. That may be a factor.

 

Dancers can be spirited away ... I did so myself with a guy for 4 years.

 

Also, I think that a higher proportion of gym guys are actual competitors and they find the hours do not fit well with their rigorous training routines.

 

—-

 

Le Bourbon Condos will be completed next year and should bring in at least 200 residents. That may lift the energy a little. However, its commercial space may not do well. People just really like to shop on StC West, in my area, where the big brand names are. It is getting too big for its britches. There are several immense residential towers going up. A total of 200 stories just steps from my place and hundreds more within 5-10 minutes walking. The immense underground retail will thrive and draw more shoppers away from The Village. The Village offers niche shopping, nice for visitors but not so convenient for city dwellers.

Edited September 15, 2019 by SirBIllybob

[JR-Mtl]

——-

 

I think that there are a lot of factors at play, not the least of which is perspective.

 

 

You wrote in an earlier post:

 

“The clubs can hire and pay strippers a wage for stage entertainment, in the same way they employ servers, DJs, etc, but it is a criminal offense for the club to have those same strippers provide private lap dances. The club can only profit from bev service if all employees refrain from activities that legally impugn the club and consumers.... it is illegal to purchase lap dances, but legal for independent contractor lap dancers to sell them, as long as the club does not profit.”

 

I think your enjoyable posts are mixing up 3 areas of law: labour law, liquor licensing, and the criminal code.

 

The argument you repeated, used by the bar owners, that contractual distance is necessary to protect them simply doesn’t hold up. I seem to have beat you in visits to Appolon. I was there when it was still on Guy Street before it moved to Crescent, close to The Limelight. That was 40 years ago; and, they didn’t pay the dancers then. The dancers paid the bar to dance. It’s profitable for the bar owners, and there is no legal defence. Swinging Richards recently lost its case with 5 dancers trying to use “I’m a contractor not an employer argument.” Uber is going with “I’m a platform not an employer”, and they’re going to loose as well.

 

In each of the three areas of law, you have to consider the law, and then the local decisions about the application of the law - like jay-walking, illegal in Toronto and Montreal, but…

 

In Quebec, it’s illegal to discriminate based on gender. Campus, Stock and Taboo have “ladies night”. All of them are breaking the law. They can not exclude women at any time. But it takes someone who cares enough to make a complaint to the Rights Commission. Someone who is willing to wait a minimum of two to three years for a first level decision.

 

The bar owners are worried about their liquor licences. Too many bikers (criminal activity), or indecent behaviour, and the licence can be pulled, or suspended. Taboo lost its licence when a dancer was found to be under 18.

 

In the earlier days, the regulations were much tougher. When Campus opened, it was forbidden for dancers to sit with a client, or to spend too much time with any client. The regs were written with women’s bars in minds. Seems they could trick their clients into buying too much over-priced champagne. At Campus, the dancers did not circulate, they stood waiting beside a jukebox until they were approached.

 

And then to this odd mix, we throw in the Criminal Code. Lap dances did not become legal in 2000. They ceased to be defined as “indecent”. If memory serves, the case involved a service where the window opened and a woman masturbated owned by a former police officer. The court found that it didn’t meet the community’s definition of indecent. The definitions of indecent and prostitution are not included in the Criminal Code.

 

Almost by accident, lap dances became criminal in 2010. Absolutely no contact required. Again a women’s strip bar, the Bar Lavalois.

 

The women, and doorman, had been arrested as found-ins in a bawdy house (no surprise no clear definition other than a place where prostitution or indecent acts occur on a regular basis). Why by accident? For the first time, the police didn’t charge them with indecent behaviour, they went for prostitution. It was a municipal court. They won; the reviewing court agreed. It headed for the Quebec Court of Appeal. Mr Justice Hilton used the common law definition of prostitution as sexual gratification for consideration.

 

So at this point, lap dances are prostitution. You’re paying to get excited. No touching required.

 

In 2014, the Harper government re-wrote the criminal code articles on prostitution which had never been illegal in Canada. There were things attached to it that were, don’t block the traffic (street work), don’t make a living off someone else’s work (pimp), bawdy-house, etc

 

His government made it illegal to buy sex, but not to sell it. So anyone who buys a lap dance faces criminal charges.

 

The law has been challenged.

 

Being real, this has been the case since 2014, and not one raid.

[SirBillybob]

I won’t quote your passage, Jr-Mtl, but I appreciate the additions. I am not a lawyer or expert, but I agree with much of how you see it, some of it may be either one of us splitting hairs on wording and meanings, and we are both missing key parts of the history and the nuances pre- and post- Nordic model application 2014.

 

You made some typing errors I think and some passages do not make sense to me.

 

I avoided the distinction between indecency standards and indictability for simplicity sake.

 

I was trying to focus mainly on vice/morals law and deliberately skirted labour and licensing, but you are correct in that they are relevant.

 

My biggest mistake was attempting to illuminate the reasons for others’ observations about the scene and how their contentment has shifted.

 

Prostitution law here was and is quirky and probably poorly understand by our American cousins. It came down much to communicating for purposes of prostitution (in my books that is enough to have defined it as illegal prior to 2014), and now is protect-provider -- indict John — neo-abolitionism.

 

I don’t know much about the bawdy-house found-in ... seems specific to the setting without concrete evidence of negotiating a trick, the key illegality up to 2014.

 

Technically, now, exchanging champagne service privilege for your dancer, “for consideration” even without cash, qualifies as prostitution if a private lap dance occurs. But what law enforcement system would care? They are interested in exchanging candy for favours from minors, or drugs in exchange for blowies from female addicts.

 

Anyway, how can legal resources keep up when the bar is set so low for what constitutes vice? The Nordic model cares little about MSM trade. It is basically anti-male and as long as The Village clubs are trafficking testosterone, rec drugs, etc, but not females, perhaps things will carry on non-dramatically.

Edited September 16, 2019 by SirBIllybob

[SirBillybob]

PS: lucky me in that I lived in TO and infrequently attended Rem’n’s MofS but was fortunate at the time not to be caught up in the raid.

[JR-Mtl]

I won’t quote your passage, Jr-Mtl, but I appreciate the additions. I am not a lawyer or expert, but I agree with much of how you see it, some of it may be either one of us splitting hairs on wording and meanings, and we are both missing key parts of the history and the nuances pre- and post- Nordic model application 2014.

 

I avoided the distinction between indecency standards and indictability for simplicity sake.

 

I was trying to focus mainly on vice/morals law and deliberately skirted labour and licensing, but you are correct in that they are relevant.

 

Prostitution law here was and is quirky and probably poorly understand by our American cousins. It came down much to communicating for purposes of prostitution (in my books that is enough to have defined it as illegal prior to 2014), and now is protect-provider -- indict John — neo-abolitionism.

 

I don’t know much about the bawdy-house found-in ... seems specific to the setting without concrete evidence of negotiating a trick, the key illegality up to 2014.

 

 

 

I did start by saying I liked your posts.

 

I'm a retired lawyer. I worked on these types of issues with the "late" Gay Line as an adviser.

 

What was illegal was based on it being indecent or prostitution. An earlier court case (2010) said lap dances weren't indecent, a later one said they were prostitution (2010). A bawdy-house is a whore house. The issue is if you're present while illegal activities are taking place you're a found in. And I can't see any way the bar owners could distance themselves from the same charges.

 

In the Bar Lavalois case 10 dancers were charged, and the doorman. Any client could equally have been charged.

 

My bottom line: dancers are employees, and if the police wanted to prosecute, the bars are living off the avails, or are bawdy-houses.

[SirBillybob]

Oh, yes yes yes, I agree with your bottom line point. The activity trumps the distinction between a paid employee and, say, being a dancer contractor in the same way the street florists pops in to hawk stem roses. LOL, not the greatest comparative example considering rose innuendo on Grindr, etc.

 

I had to laugh when some board members said candidly to border patrol they planned on hitting the strip clubs here. I’d have substituted ‘leather bar’ and kept a stud bicep bracelet in my bag. (Not: Oh, I plan on breaking your criminal code having a stud simulate anal intercourse grinding down on my crotch)

Edited September 16, 2019 by SirBIllybob

[+ newatthis]

As a long-time Montreal afficionado, I've been enjoying your posts, @@SirBIllybob and @@JR-Mtl. I'm wondering if either of you can shed light on the curtains/no-curtains drama at Campus. I'm sure you'll recall that (all too brief) interlude when Campus had curtain-closed lap dance booths. I have inquiried (from dancers, from Gary, from other staff) why the curtains were taken down, but never heard an answer that made any sense -- especially since Stock's curtains remained. Any insights?

[SirBillybob]

Yes, it is confusing, isn’t it?

 

Ordinarily open (or non-) curtain suggests less contact and $10 ... I believe Stock has a sign delineating the distinction.

 

I have always assumed all songs are $20 at Campus and not bothered to request a lesser rate, because I want “$20 action”. Perhaps the absence of a curtain supports the notion that all songs are the higher rate, therefore more lucrative for dancers.

 

Perhaps Stock is taking more of risk, or open versus closed there cues a clearer boundary between 2 versions of contact. It may simply be club preference, or a little of “something for everyone” on the strip.

 

I believe the official boiler-plate explanation is that the open concept is less incriminating and closer to the table-dance concept. Protection of all parties. Also, a foreign presence such as morality squad can be noticed more easily and warn that adjustments in cubicle choreography are required.

 

Where some charges have been laid in Canada, the law enforcers have yanked open the curtain so the element of surprise prevents behaviour alteration.

 

I note, though, that open concept at Campus is partially visible but at a distance, so it may encourage curiosity and retail.

[Boy4]

PS: lucky me in that I lived in TO and infrequently attended Rem’n’s MofS but was fortunate at the time not to be caught up in the raid.

Raid? When did that happen?

[SirBillybob]

Feb 1996 Remingtons

[+ SundayZip]

As a long-time Montreal afficionado, I've been enjoying your posts, @@SirBIllybob and @@JR-Mtl. I'm wondering if either of you can shed light on the curtains/no-curtains drama at Campus. I'm sure you'll recall that (all too brief) interlude when Campus had curtain-closed lap dance booths. I have inquiried (from dancers, from Gary, from other staff) why the curtains were taken down, but never heard an answer that made any sense -- especially since Stock's curtains remained. Any insights?

 

I've long given up trying to understand the curtain/no-curtain situation at Campus and Stock Bar. At Campus, the lack of curtains seems to make very little difference in the activities allowed during a lap dance. You get the right dancer in the right lap dance booth and the two of you make up your own rules. Regarding curtains at Stock Bar, they give you more privacy, therefore you'd think that rules about physical contact would be less stringent. But that's certainly not been my experience. It probably makes sense to someone... but not to me.

[shy]

"I'm wondering if either of you can shed light on the curtains/no-curtains drama at Campus."

 

"I've long given up trying to understand the curtain/no-curtain situation at Campus and Stock Bar"

 

my basic, fading recollection of back when the curtains came off at campus it was because they were told the only way they could stay open after a periodic police walk-through found illicit activity was to remove the curtains.

[+ newatthis]

"I'm wondering if either of you can shed light on the curtains/no-curtains drama at Campus."

 

"I've long given up trying to understand the curtain/no-curtain situation at Campus and Stock Bar"

 

my basic, fading recollection of back when the curtains came off at campus it was because they were told the only way they could stay open after a periodic police walk-through found illicit activity was to remove the curtains.

I've heard that explanation too, but without the statement that the police required it. And this doesn't really jive with the fact that Stock has closed curtains and there's nothing different about what happens there. Hence my question.

[+ newatthis]

I've long given up trying to understand the curtain/no-curtain situation at Campus and Stock Bar. At Campus, the lack of curtains seems to make very little difference in the activities allowed during a lap dance. You get the right dancer in the right lap dance booth and the two of you make up your own rules. Regarding curtains at Stock Bar, they give you more privacy, therefore you'd think that rules about physical contact would be less stringent. But that's certainly not been my experience. It probably makes sense to someone... but not to me.

For sure!

[mcbg22]

I didn't mind the open curtains at Campus before but now, the back section is very open, meaning customers at the bar can look inside and while getting a lap dance, you see the coming and going of other dancers and clients. Quite awkward

[+ Hoover42]

I didn't mind the open curtains at Campus before but now, the back section is very open, meaning customers at the bar can look inside and while getting a lap dance, you see the coming and going of other dancers and clients. Quite awkward

 

Some of the booths are a little more hidden. I'll say no more.

[mcbg22]

Some of the booths are a little more hidden. I'll say no more.

 

Yeah, if it's not too busy but you get one way back

[+ newatthis]

Some of the booths are a little more hidden. I'll say no more.

Yeah, if it's not too busy but you get one way back

Sometimes a dancer (the right dancer ) -- upon seeing that those booths are occupied -- will suggest we wait until one of them is free.

[Poppie]

Those are my FAVORITE dancers

[cheyenne10]

I was on Campus back in 2014 and had a great time with a dancer named Kovi. I later found out that he is the same Kovi from Maskurbate.

[JR-Mtl]

Yes, it is confusing, isn’t it?

 

Ordinarily open (or non-) curtain suggests less contact and $10 ... I believe Stock has a sign delineating the distinction.

 

I have always assumed all songs are $20 at Campus and not bothered to request a lesser rate, because I want “$20 action”. Perhaps the absence of a curtain supports the notion that all songs are the higher rate, therefore more lucrative for dancers.

 

Perhaps Stock is taking more of risk, or open versus closed there cues a clearer boundary between 2 versions of contact. It may simply be club preference, or a little of “something for everyone” on the strip.

 

I believe the official boiler-plate explanation is that the open concept is less incriminating and closer to the table-dance concept. Protection of all parties. Also, a foreign presence such as morality squad can be noticed more easily and warn that adjustments in cubicle choreography are required.

 

Where some charges have been laid in Canada, the law enforcers have yanked open the curtain so the element of surprise prevents behaviour alteration.

 

I note, though, that open concept at Campus is partially visible but at a distance, so it may encourage curiosity and retail.

 

 

The first part is really simple. If you're paying for a dance, it's illegal. The second part, are the Montreal police going to charge. The answer is, not in the last 10 years while it's been illegal. You don't have to touch; if you paid to get aroused, by the definition set by the Court of Appeal, it's prostitution.

 

When Campus first started you could have a table dance, or go in the back. Based on the current definition, both would be prostitution.

 

And need I repeat, the decision of the Court of Appeal was in 2010, and it hasn't been applied since.

[JR-Mtl]

As a long-time Montreal afficionado, I've been enjoying your posts, @@SirBIllybob and @@JR-Mtl. I'm wondering if either of you can shed light on the curtains/no-curtains drama at Campus. I'm sure you'll recall that (all too brief) interlude when Campus had curtain-closed lap dance booths. I have inquiried (from dancers, from Gary, from other staff) why the curtains were taken down, but never heard an answer that made any sense -- especially since Stock's curtains remained. Any insights?

 

The honest answer is that it comes down to management balancing risk. Police being concerned could effect their liquor licence. What can they get away with; or what will provoke the police to intervene. Nothing makes a dance with curtains or without more or less legal.