Considering the reality of Bill C-36, and what it may mean for the future of Canada's prostitution laws and the industry as a whole, do you feel the constitutional challenge launched by Bedford et. al. was a positive development?
In Hindsight...
- Thread starter drlove
- Start date
I think the fact that Harper was PM when the three amigos decided to launch this little adventure might have been a clue. You think they were counting on Harper being out by the time their case wound it's way through the system?
Let's remove Bedford from the equation. Sweden still inacts its laws, and the other Nordic countries still follow. France would still be thinking about adopting it too. Germany still legalizes prostitution, the EU is still formed with a euro and no need for passports to travel from one country to another. In short, what happened in the rest of the world still happens. The EU would still pass their non binding endorsement of the Nordic model.
Meanwhile in Canada Joy Smith still exists. She still fights human trafficking. She still sees the Swedish example and decides to bring it to Canada.
My conclusion: this law would've happened anyway in it's current form.
I voted Yes in the poll. The Bedford ruling is being used by sex worker rights activists groups to challenge the bill C-36. It was proven by the Supreme Court that our current laws put sex workers in danger. Without the successful challenge the sex worker groups would have a lot less ammo to fight with.
Things will get better.
Meanwhile in Canada Joy Smith still exists. She still fights human trafficking. She still sees the Swedish example and decides to bring it to Canada.
My conclusion: this law would've happened anyway in it's current form.
I voted Yes in the poll. The Bedford ruling is being used by sex worker rights activists groups to challenge the bill C-36. It was proven by the Supreme Court that our current laws put sex workers in danger. Without the successful challenge the sex worker groups would have a lot less ammo to fight with.
Things will get better.
I have posted before on this and I'll say it again. Has C-36 fucked everyone over? Yes. But was letting womens safety go by the wayside so you could sleep easier knowing you were less likely to experience risk of trouble from the police an acceptable compromise? Fuck no. Women were getting killed by scum like Robert Pickton and something HAD to be done. So these 3 challenged it. And the courts saw they were right. So what does that cocksucker Peter McKay and scummy Stephen Harper do in response? People were being abused and it was brought into the light that the problem needed fixing. But our Moral Majority wannabe Govt says, "I'm not getting my way?" and counters with C-36 like a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum. You keep bringing up that these 3 rocked the boat and this is all their fault.
Harper is about to do the same thing with this cyberbullying law, all the experts said this invades innocent peoples privacy, you should rethink this or scale it back, etc. So what does he change? Nothing! He is going to ram it through despite everyone pointing out it still needs a ton of work. See a pattern here? both this law and C-36 are him saying "Fuck you, I'm the boss and I'm going to do whatever the hell I want, what are you going to do as we both know I can't be stopped" BLAME HARPER/McKAY!!!
Put this in a personal perspective, say its 2010 and woman A is about to meet a customer at her small one woman incall (because working with another woman would now make it a "bawdy house" ) and guy is a creep who hurts her because that is his thing. Fast forward a few years and a group of women try to make it safer by challenging existing laws. They succeed. Now in a world where the judges ideas become real, she ends up working at a place with security and no more bawdy house bullshit. Mr. Rough shows up and is told his business is not wanted and to GTFO. Great. Now go back in time and you talk these 3 out of challenging the law because its better to stick with the devil you know than the devil you don't. They agree and nothing changes and now woman A is still working her one woman incall. Mr Rough shows up and beats the shit out of her, much more severely this time because he's needing more violence to make him happy now as he has built up a tolerance. But for you, things are great as you maintained the status quo and can hobby with relative impunity.
Are you seriously going to take the point of view that your needs for anonymous hobbying trumps her need for safer working conditions? Because that seems to be your view of things, that your needs were more important than theirs. Again, why not blame the guys who are going out of thier way to potentially ruin your life rather than the women who tried to make it safer for the same sex workers who bring you happiness to ply their trade with less risk of being harmed...or worse.
Harper is about to do the same thing with this cyberbullying law, all the experts said this invades innocent peoples privacy, you should rethink this or scale it back, etc. So what does he change? Nothing! He is going to ram it through despite everyone pointing out it still needs a ton of work. See a pattern here? both this law and C-36 are him saying "Fuck you, I'm the boss and I'm going to do whatever the hell I want, what are you going to do as we both know I can't be stopped" BLAME HARPER/McKAY!!!
Put this in a personal perspective, say its 2010 and woman A is about to meet a customer at her small one woman incall (because working with another woman would now make it a "bawdy house" ) and guy is a creep who hurts her because that is his thing. Fast forward a few years and a group of women try to make it safer by challenging existing laws. They succeed. Now in a world where the judges ideas become real, she ends up working at a place with security and no more bawdy house bullshit. Mr. Rough shows up and is told his business is not wanted and to GTFO. Great. Now go back in time and you talk these 3 out of challenging the law because its better to stick with the devil you know than the devil you don't. They agree and nothing changes and now woman A is still working her one woman incall. Mr Rough shows up and beats the shit out of her, much more severely this time because he's needing more violence to make him happy now as he has built up a tolerance. But for you, things are great as you maintained the status quo and can hobby with relative impunity.
Are you seriously going to take the point of view that your needs for anonymous hobbying trumps her need for safer working conditions? Because that seems to be your view of things, that your needs were more important than theirs. Again, why not blame the guys who are going out of thier way to potentially ruin your life rather than the women who tried to make it safer for the same sex workers who bring you happiness to ply their trade with less risk of being harmed...or worse.
I posted this on another thread, and I'm going to repost it here as well, because I don't think most TERBites understand the context of the challenge itself. It was never meant to be just about Bedford, Lebovich & Scott, and perhaps you'll see things differently if you knew the true context of what was going on. Out here in Ontario (and Toronto in particular) our experience of the industry is much different than it is elsewhere - we have a number of established agencies & indies, a mostly hands-off police force, and no experience with any major serial killers. Out west, on the other hand...
Your "PhD in pussyology" seems apt, considering you're acting like quite the pussy these days - seriously, you sound like a five-year-old girl, and it's extremely unappealing. Either man up and figure out a way around the laws, or take your goddamn ball and go home.
So, drlove, please stop your whinging about the challenge, and turn your ire towards the assholes who are actually tabling this bill. I'm quite sick of seeing your bitchy posts all over this board and the other board, as if the only thing you have time for is complaining. There are plenty of threads with good advice on how to avoid any of the problems the new laws might cause you, so please, either STFU or GTFO. This is a board for adults - men and women who don't give a damn what a bunch of bible-thumping assholes think of our hobby. Clever men will find a way to overcome these challenges, and there are plenty of threads dedicated to getting around the laws, so quit bitching about the problem and start being part of the solution.
Your "PhD in pussyology" seems apt, considering you're acting like quite the pussy these days - seriously, you sound like a five-year-old girl, and it's extremely unappealing. Either man up and figure out a way around the laws, or take your goddamn ball and go home.
This is most certainly a Harper problem.
I get the underlying argument, but the situation is far more complex than "protect the women". You make it sound as though sexworkers had no legal protections or access to justice in the horrible old days. Yes, the Picktons of the world existed, but these laws won't solve that. These laws help indoor sexworkers, not the streetwalkers on whom the predators prey as weak.
Of course, sexworkers are exposed to less extreme forms of violence everyday. But, where, under the current laws, would the women have been prevented from accessing the Justice system against mr. Rough? They aren't. We even have a dedicated police unit in Toronto to service this sector. But, girls don't report crimes because they don't want to compromise their privacy, or become known to the police.
Thats what this situation has become. A transference of risk from one side of the transaction to the other.
Is their right to privacy and anonymity greater than ours? Of course not.
And yet, I'm not sure that it has solved any of the original problems that faced most sexworkers. According to one successful and longtime veteran of the escort business, she's never had a problem hiring protection or using incalls (discretely). She's even good with local LE when she has a problem.
Btw, those who don't understand why the govt didn't just outright ban prostitution should read your post. It's a lot easier to sell women's safety. Anyone who speaks against the policy is a misogynist, or worse, right?
it may be selfish and unpopular for a John to complain, especially now that c36 is out and we are clearly the targets. Don't assume that it's just the men complaining. Ask around. many many sexworkers and female owners believed that Bedford should have just let things alone. Now we are all getting fucked by harpo.
Are you serious? These laws help sexworkers???
How is driving the industry back underground a good thing for them?
Of course it's a good thing they got bad laws overturned.
Don't blame them if Harper took it as an opportunity to take away our freedom.
Instead of hindsight, how about some foresight? Prostitutes will challenge this and win again. :thumb:
Teaseplease, that was an excellent response. Only thing I don't agree with is your comment about thier privacy vs ours, I still see it as a case of our privacy vs their safety, the changes to the laws would have made it easier for a streetwalker to to come indoors where it was safer. And I don't want you not to complain,you have every right to and I'm complaining too. I only wish your anger was directed at those who actively seek to fuck you over instead of the workers who simply wanted safer working conditions.
Agreed. I hope there's a way that the SCC can get involved right off the bat so that we don't have to waste years in court challenging Harper's stupid new laws. I'd like to see the Conservatives put in their place ASAP!
Agreed!! TP, you have to stop saying these new laws help sex workers. Nothing is farther from the truth. Its not just black & white on paper.
In Hindsight . . .
The intent of this thread, this poll, and so many posts in every C-36 thread on this board have too much in common with the attitude of the idiot cop who told York University students that "women should stop dressing like sluts" to avoid getting raped.
Slutwalk rallied thousands of women and men to the streets in response, to highlight not only the oppression implicit in blaming victims but also the misogyny of using pejorative language to shame women for their sexuality.
That response was not only appropriate but also necessary.
So was the constitutional challenge launched by Bedford et al. It was essential to moving our legal system forward.
Yes, society often moves two steps forward, then one step back. Clearly, we see the Harper Tories moving backward. That's the target to focus on. Bill C-36, not the people who fight for civil liberty.
Stop blaming women who stand up for what's right.
The intent of this thread, this poll, and so many posts in every C-36 thread on this board have too much in common with the attitude of the idiot cop who told York University students that "women should stop dressing like sluts" to avoid getting raped.
Slutwalk rallied thousands of women and men to the streets in response, to highlight not only the oppression implicit in blaming victims but also the misogyny of using pejorative language to shame women for their sexuality.
That response was not only appropriate but also necessary.
So was the constitutional challenge launched by Bedford et al. It was essential to moving our legal system forward.
Yes, society often moves two steps forward, then one step back. Clearly, we see the Harper Tories moving backward. That's the target to focus on. Bill C-36, not the people who fight for civil liberty.
Stop blaming women who stand up for what's right.
Last edited:
Right On Art!!! Self-righteous victim-blaming because the government proposes an even less defensible law that might force you to curtail your selfish pleasures is despicable. Those who lack the brains to keep such attitudes to themselves clearly won't have the wisdom to protect themselves the obvious way—by keeping it in their pants—nor the balls to fight injustice that Bedford showed, if they do get caught.
Such people just give Steve and Petey and their self-righteous base even more evidence that pooners are indeed predatory exploiters. For proving their point, such morons deserve our contempt
Such people just give Steve and Petey and their self-righteous base even more evidence that pooners are indeed predatory exploiters. For proving their point, such morons deserve our contempt
Yah, you're both right. We should have kept the laws against bawdy houses and living off the avails. Who needs incalls, bookers, drivers, etc. What the fuck, Bedford?!?
(p.s., I'm pretty sure that would be the first and only time I've given praise to the bill, albeit faint. So I don't know where I have repeatedly touted so as to warrant a request to stop.... As you say, it's not black & white; not the issue and certainly not the solution. I'm sure that most of us on TERB would not be satisfied with anything less than full decriminalization of all aspects of the sex trade. But, is that realistic, or necessarily desirable?)
