悉尼妓院

悉尼是可以合法經營妓院(brothel)的，發牌程序我不清楚，寫這一篇也不是教人開妓寨，而是看了今天一段新聞，勾起香港一樓一鳳現象的聯想。先講這新聞：

One of Sydney's largest councils has launched legal action to close an underground brothel. To win, it not only has to prove that sex is being sold on the premises - but lots of it.

North Sydney Council is understood to have paid for at least one private investigator to go undercover inside the White Cat at Crows Nest and have sex in order to try and convince a magistrate that its two previous closure orders were flouted. The court action follows an investigation by The Sun-Herald in October which found that the same business was promoting a two-tiered pricing system in which Asian workers were being offered for $90 less than the standard $250 hourly rate charged by caucasian women

But the court case, which commenced on Wednesday, is expected to hinge on how much sex the council can prove takes place within the building after a landmark decision went against neighbouring Hornsby Council, in almost identical circumstances, in February.

In that matter, the council spent almost $100,000 attempting to close an alleged illegal parlour located next door to a children's learning centre. A magistrate, however, ruled that council had not proved there was enough sex being sold on the premises for it to fit NSW's definition of "brothel", which requires more than one prostitute to be providing services on site.

(24/5/2015 extracted from Sydney Morning Herald)

在補習社旁邊，在名女校附近提供性服務當然要取締。我奇怪的是這不是警察的工作嗎？在香港，那些按摩院，指壓中心，浴足池，經常都有掃黃的警員喬裝僱客去搜集證據。議定價錢，進行交易之際，臨崖勒馬，推說有事，先行告退。到了第二次也重施故技，時機成熟就召集其他警察來拉人。另一做法就是同一時間兩名警員喬裝行事，為的是要符合法律上 'wholly or mainly' 的要求。在這些場所的性工作者也很醒目，會問恩客的職業，索取卡片，確保不是警察喬裝。如果警察話自己是做地盤的，這妓女會摸下他的手是否粗糙，看他膚色是否黝黑，以免中圈套。這都是因為這些色情場所(vice establisment)提供超過一個妓女的風險。於是，到了90年代，就成熟發展成個體戶的一樓一鳳來。做妓女在香港並不犯法，只有誘使他人作不道德行為(soliciting for immoral purpose)才犯法，即是在街上擠眉弄眼拉客。如果沒有在街上拉客，一人企業，並不犯法。嫖妓也不犯法，但嫖客在街上問價，同樣干犯這法例，當然是要女警扮鳳姐放蛇。

在悉尼開檔做一樓一鳳又會不會犯法呢？

上面的新聞使我震驚，花100,000澳幣，也不能搜集到符合法律定義'brothel'的證據？找私家偵探去幫襯，為何不再花一點錢去多一次呢？法例對brothel的介定是

"brothel" means premises:
(a) habitually used for the purposes of prostitution, or
(b) that have been used for the purposes of prostitution and are likely to be used again for that purpose, or
(c) that have been expressly or implicitly:
(i) advertised (whether by advertisements in or on the premises, newspapers, directories or the internet or by other means), or
(ii) represented,as being used for the purposes of prostitution, and that are likely to be used for the purposes of prostitution.

Hornsby Council功虧一簣的就是'habitually'這個字，只去放蛇一次就不能説那地方經常進行賣淫活動了。有先例參考，我真不明白North Sydney怎會重蹈覆轍。

悉尼沒有像香港那種一樓一鳳，通常都以按摩為幌子，而提供各式性服務。要按摩就要搞清楚，别去錯地方，否則亂按亂摸弄傷了身體就慘了。港式的一樓一鳳，在悉尼反而會犯法，因為政府可向法庭申請，declare該地方不能進行賣淫活動，繼續經營可控告owner and occupier，一樓一鳳就難以經營了。