My God that has to be the most one-sided biased "interview" I've ever seen. Asshole and Church girl, my God.
Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments
- Thread starter gustave55
- Start date
VICTORIA - Her typical work day begins around 8 a.m. with a coffee, emails and a sleepy cat on her lap.
“I message people, set up appointments … and probably spend too much time on Facebook,” Cameron Diablo said. “You have to be really disciplined being your own boss.”
The routine is similar to anyone running a home-based business. She advertises, does her own paperwork and monitors what customers say about her services online.
But she works discreetly from home for her safety, not just convenience.
Diablo is a sex worker. She uses a pseudonym and asks her clients to use a specific etiquette when visiting her residential neighbourhood. “If they knock on the front door, the appointment is over,” she said.
Her supplies include condoms, wipes and fresh sheets. Her work attire includes lingerie “and little dresses I would never wear in my real life,” she said. “And instead of a desk in my office, I have a bed.”
Diablo is among some Victoria sex workers and advocates concerned that prostitution legislation introduced by the federal government last month could make her job even more dangerous and stigmatized.
The proposed legislation makes purchasing sex illegal for the first time in Canada. It also outlaws communicating for the sale or purchase of sex services, advertising sex services in print or online and selling sex anywhere children might be present.
As dozens of academics, former sex workers and social organizations testified at a House of Commons justice committee hearing on the bill last week, Diablo shared her concerns at a downtown cafe.
“I don’t understand how it’s going to be better or safer,” said Diablo, who screens clients through her website, via email and by sharing information with other escorts.
“And I worry about my good clients. They’re supposed to be perverts because their wife died years ago and they haven’t had sex?”
Diablo is frustrated by the perception that sex workers like herself are victims or “troubled people who came from awful circumstances.”
She recognizes that trafficking, addiction and exploitation are a problem in the industry, but said the circumstances that led her to sex work were fairly ordinary.
Diablo grew up on the Island. She started waitressing at 15, travelled through Europe in her early 20s and studied social work.
“After being in the service industry for so long, I wanted to do something more intelligent,” she said. She decided to go to massage therapy school but couldn’t balance studies, work and the mounting debt.
“I got sick of calling my parents for money just so I could pay my $800 rent,” she said. After a bad breakup, she found herself on Craigslist looking in Intimate Encounter — a section of the website for people looking for consensual hook-ups. Instead, she came across an ad soliciting sex work.
“We emailed, he came over, and I made a few hundred dollars,” she said. “I had no idea what I was doing but it wasn’t a bad experience. I’ve never had a bad experience. Some gross ones. But thankfully nothing scary.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/me...y+face+bill/10026329/story.html#ixzz37MmL937f
“I message people, set up appointments … and probably spend too much time on Facebook,” Cameron Diablo said. “You have to be really disciplined being your own boss.”
The routine is similar to anyone running a home-based business. She advertises, does her own paperwork and monitors what customers say about her services online.
But she works discreetly from home for her safety, not just convenience.
Diablo is a sex worker. She uses a pseudonym and asks her clients to use a specific etiquette when visiting her residential neighbourhood. “If they knock on the front door, the appointment is over,” she said.
Her supplies include condoms, wipes and fresh sheets. Her work attire includes lingerie “and little dresses I would never wear in my real life,” she said. “And instead of a desk in my office, I have a bed.”
Diablo is among some Victoria sex workers and advocates concerned that prostitution legislation introduced by the federal government last month could make her job even more dangerous and stigmatized.
The proposed legislation makes purchasing sex illegal for the first time in Canada. It also outlaws communicating for the sale or purchase of sex services, advertising sex services in print or online and selling sex anywhere children might be present.
As dozens of academics, former sex workers and social organizations testified at a House of Commons justice committee hearing on the bill last week, Diablo shared her concerns at a downtown cafe.
“I don’t understand how it’s going to be better or safer,” said Diablo, who screens clients through her website, via email and by sharing information with other escorts.
“And I worry about my good clients. They’re supposed to be perverts because their wife died years ago and they haven’t had sex?”
Diablo is frustrated by the perception that sex workers like herself are victims or “troubled people who came from awful circumstances.”
She recognizes that trafficking, addiction and exploitation are a problem in the industry, but said the circumstances that led her to sex work were fairly ordinary.
Diablo grew up on the Island. She started waitressing at 15, travelled through Europe in her early 20s and studied social work.
“After being in the service industry for so long, I wanted to do something more intelligent,” she said. She decided to go to massage therapy school but couldn’t balance studies, work and the mounting debt.
“I got sick of calling my parents for money just so I could pay my $800 rent,” she said. After a bad breakup, she found herself on Craigslist looking in Intimate Encounter — a section of the website for people looking for consensual hook-ups. Instead, she came across an ad soliciting sex work.
“We emailed, he came over, and I made a few hundred dollars,” she said. “I had no idea what I was doing but it wasn’t a bad experience. I’ve never had a bad experience. Some gross ones. But thankfully nothing scary.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/me...y+face+bill/10026329/story.html#ixzz37MmL937f
Being independent for now, but they can still try to organize them.
If cash compensation isn't an issue, then fees paid to the owner could be an issue, work hours, or even benefits (force owners to fund pensions too). They can try to organize MPAs using any grievance(s) to galvanize support.
Bill C-36 is an issue that the union can use to garner support for organization.
Last edited:
that femihag Bridget recently attacked OliviaSP in twitter. i posted the screen shot in a another thread.
So much info is coming out about this. This is fucking awful! Our government should be ashamed!
in Iceland after the pass their version of the Nordic Law vigilantes are stalking and attacking men.
From Austailia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-20/politicians-on-prostitution-study-tour-to-europe-asia/5333472
An excerpt;
Prostitution is legal in the ACT but Mrs Jones says changes like the Nordic model would not bring about the end of the industry.
"In the countries where this reform has taken place, the industry does not disappear, but it has been reported to reduce by up to 40 per cent," she said.
[h=2]'Nordic model would drive prostitution underground'[/h]But sex worker advocate and Sex Party convenor Fiona Patten says such a model would be a backward step for Australia and drive prostitution underground.
"Effectively you are making the industry illegal again," she said.
"How does that help people working in the industry, by pushing it underground, by making it easier for women to be exploited in this industry?"
Wayne Morgan from the Australian National University College of Law agrees the the Nordic model can be counterproductive.
"In fact criminalising either side of the transaction, so either the sex worker or the client, means that the industry is driven underground," he said.
"It cannot be regulated, proper health and safety standards cannot be put in place, and sex workers of course feel reluctant to go to police or other authorities."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-20/politicians-on-prostitution-study-tour-to-europe-asia/5333472
An excerpt;
Prostitution is legal in the ACT but Mrs Jones says changes like the Nordic model would not bring about the end of the industry.
"In the countries where this reform has taken place, the industry does not disappear, but it has been reported to reduce by up to 40 per cent," she said.
[h=2]'Nordic model would drive prostitution underground'[/h]But sex worker advocate and Sex Party convenor Fiona Patten says such a model would be a backward step for Australia and drive prostitution underground.
"Effectively you are making the industry illegal again," she said.
"How does that help people working in the industry, by pushing it underground, by making it easier for women to be exploited in this industry?"
Wayne Morgan from the Australian National University College of Law agrees the the Nordic model can be counterproductive.
"In fact criminalising either side of the transaction, so either the sex worker or the client, means that the industry is driven underground," he said.
"It cannot be regulated, proper health and safety standards cannot be put in place, and sex workers of course feel reluctant to go to police or other authorities."
'to protect children from thinking that prostitution is easy money'? Where do they get that? Who the hell is trying to promote child prostitution? These are outright lies.
Meggan Walker, who testified in favour of C-36, tweeted a statement from Stella Ambler, one of the Tories on the Justice Committee, about witnesses invited to testify by the Liberals and the NDP at last week's hearings:
Megan Walker
@meggiewalk
johnsvoice (concerned about johns not women) was NDP witness. #c36 #gocanadianmodel pic.twitter.com/Db4axrrcv7
7:41 PM - 10 Jul 2014
https://twitter.com/meggiewalk/status/487426497267789825/photo/1
She equates pimps with johns, and doesn't recognize voluntary sex workers.
Moralizing and scare-mongering. Might as well call yourselves the Tea Party.
For some reason, this release doesn't appear on her website.Meggan Walker, who testified in favour of C-36, tweeted a statement from Stella Ambler, one of the Tories on the Justice Committee, about witnesses invited to testify by the Liberals and the NDP at last week's hearings:
Megan Walker
@meggiewalk
johnsvoice (concerned about johns not women) was NDP witness. #c36 #gocanadianmodel pic.twitter.com/Db4axrrcv7
7:41 PM - 10 Jul 2014
https://twitter.com/meggiewalk/status/487426497267789825/photo/1
Politics | Jul 15, 2014 | 11:23
MPs on prostitution bill
Bob Dechert, Francoise Boivin and Sean Casey debate whether government amendments to its prostitution bill addresses Supreme Court concerns
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+&+Politics/ID/2473964772/
Definitely worth a watch.
MPs on prostitution bill
Bob Dechert, Francoise Boivin and Sean Casey debate whether government amendments to its prostitution bill addresses Supreme Court concerns
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+&+Politics/ID/2473964772/
Definitely worth a watch.
Hopefully!
Let him/her without sin zing the first rock!
But, would it have more impact if they waited until the new law is enacted?
Last edited:
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/15/prostitution-hearings-miss-mark
Prostitution hearings miss mark
And they say summers on the Hill are supposed to be boring.
We’re told that committee hearings are a place for lawmakers to drop the antics of the House of Commons and hear expert testimony. So when a bill on, say, financial matters is before a committee it should be the most boring affair. Picture a bunch of dusty experts rolling out charts that no one can make heads or tails of.
The sign of a properly organized committee hearing is that it’s so boring the rotisserie chicken channel gets more viewers and the journalists who show up are the ones at the office who drew the short straw.
Therefore the opposite rule must surely be that if there’s great public interest in committee hearings, something isn’t quite right about how they’re being done. This brings us to the current prostitution hearings.
After the Supreme Court struck down the main provisions against prostitution in December, the government tabled Bill C-36. The gist of it is that it shifts criminality from the seller to the buyer.
As I’ve previously argued, the solution should be simple: The legislative goal must be to decriminalize monetary transactions between consenting adults while honing the legal and enforcement tools used to double down in eradicating human trafficking, child prostitution and other such egregious crimes.
While clearly many people are forced into this line of work, since I’ve starting writing on this issue many prostitutes have also written to me to say they do their line of work by choice, wish to continue and don’t want their client base made into criminals.
It would be a failure of both conservative ideology and left-wing feminist ideology to say these women just don't know what's good for them. The former, because these are essentially small business operators saying they want freedom from government interference, and the latter, because these are women saying they should be able to do what they want with their bodies.
Yet rather than have a committee acknowledge that this is in fact a legal question about drawing distinctions between consent and abuse, the testimonies would have you believe this is about drumming up sordid tales – and there are many – to see how much it takes to summon a person’s disgust.
Three former prostitutes spoke at committee to weigh in on why they support the government’s bill.
As a QMI Agency story wrote of one, Katarina MacLeod, “Today, she is deeply Christian and says she regrets her past.” MacLeod wrote a column for Sun News Network explaining the sexual acts she engaged in.
It’s a compelling testimony to share with anyone thinking of entering that line of work. MacLeod can certainly play a role in persuading people to change their minds. But her testimony has little relevance legally. So some people didn’t enjoy doing sexual acts for money… well, not many of us would. But some do.
The point of a committee hearing on such a matter isn’t to get all members to agree that something is gross or disturbing or not within the realm of healthy sexual appetite. But that’s what this has become in the public eye.
So some politicians are so upset by all degrees of prostitution that they want to criminalize it entirely (likely making it worse by driving it further underground). But before they do that, they want to chat about all the shocking details in the public square.
This brings to mind when Samuel Johnson had finished composing his dictionary in 1755. A bunch of old ladies approached him to say “we congratulate you on not adding any dirty words,” to which he responded “and I congratulate you on knowing them all enough to look them up.”
Prostitution hearings miss mark
And they say summers on the Hill are supposed to be boring.
We’re told that committee hearings are a place for lawmakers to drop the antics of the House of Commons and hear expert testimony. So when a bill on, say, financial matters is before a committee it should be the most boring affair. Picture a bunch of dusty experts rolling out charts that no one can make heads or tails of.
The sign of a properly organized committee hearing is that it’s so boring the rotisserie chicken channel gets more viewers and the journalists who show up are the ones at the office who drew the short straw.
Therefore the opposite rule must surely be that if there’s great public interest in committee hearings, something isn’t quite right about how they’re being done. This brings us to the current prostitution hearings.
After the Supreme Court struck down the main provisions against prostitution in December, the government tabled Bill C-36. The gist of it is that it shifts criminality from the seller to the buyer.
As I’ve previously argued, the solution should be simple: The legislative goal must be to decriminalize monetary transactions between consenting adults while honing the legal and enforcement tools used to double down in eradicating human trafficking, child prostitution and other such egregious crimes.
While clearly many people are forced into this line of work, since I’ve starting writing on this issue many prostitutes have also written to me to say they do their line of work by choice, wish to continue and don’t want their client base made into criminals.
It would be a failure of both conservative ideology and left-wing feminist ideology to say these women just don't know what's good for them. The former, because these are essentially small business operators saying they want freedom from government interference, and the latter, because these are women saying they should be able to do what they want with their bodies.
Yet rather than have a committee acknowledge that this is in fact a legal question about drawing distinctions between consent and abuse, the testimonies would have you believe this is about drumming up sordid tales – and there are many – to see how much it takes to summon a person’s disgust.
Three former prostitutes spoke at committee to weigh in on why they support the government’s bill.
As a QMI Agency story wrote of one, Katarina MacLeod, “Today, she is deeply Christian and says she regrets her past.” MacLeod wrote a column for Sun News Network explaining the sexual acts she engaged in.
It’s a compelling testimony to share with anyone thinking of entering that line of work. MacLeod can certainly play a role in persuading people to change their minds. But her testimony has little relevance legally. So some people didn’t enjoy doing sexual acts for money… well, not many of us would. But some do.
The point of a committee hearing on such a matter isn’t to get all members to agree that something is gross or disturbing or not within the realm of healthy sexual appetite. But that’s what this has become in the public eye.
So some politicians are so upset by all degrees of prostitution that they want to criminalize it entirely (likely making it worse by driving it further underground). But before they do that, they want to chat about all the shocking details in the public square.
This brings to mind when Samuel Johnson had finished composing his dictionary in 1755. A bunch of old ladies approached him to say “we congratulate you on not adding any dirty words,” to which he responded “and I congratulate you on knowing them all enough to look them up.”
Watching a nude dancer or even jerking off to her is not a sexual service (it's not masturbation at a MP). Neither is making a porno, presumably between consenting adults (that's "art").This is both stupid and ridiculous. How the hell would I know when I invite nude dancers to my home and they entertain me to what limit I can go without breaking the new laws. Do I have to find out in court? And more importantly how the hell would the government or law enforcement know to what extend we would go?. Do they install a hidden camera in my apartment or bedroom? Not sure I need to laugh or cry at the unlimited idiocy of the law makers we have elected. Idiots.
Well they need to prove you "paid" for the sexual service (i.e. lap dance) directly. If you just paid $300 for dancers to dance in front of you for an hour and the dancer decided to start touching and grinding up on you it would be considered an act between two consulting adults outside the context of a monetary transaction. So yes, this law is stupid and almost impossible to enforce effectively. The real damage is just the "fear factor" for many people that can't afford to even risk a criminal record, even if the change of it happening is 0.00001%.This is both stupid and ridiculous. How the hell would I know when I invite nude dancers to my home and they entertain me to what limit I can go without breaking the new laws. Do I have to find out in court? And more importantly how the hell would the government or law enforcement know to what extend we would go?. Do they install a hidden camera in my apartment or bedroom? Not sure I need to laugh or cry at the unlimited idiocy of the law makers we have elected. Idiots
