Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

MPAsquared

www.musemassagespa.com
http://whyshouldicare.ca/event/canada_prostitution_laws/

Canada’s New Prostitution Laws: The impact on Sex Workers
July 21 @ 7:00 pm - 10:00 pm
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down three**provisions in the criminal code related to prostitution.**The Supreme Court found the old laws, under which prostitution was legal while related activities were not,**violate the right to security of the person which is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.**Parliament had one year to come up with changes.

The government recently tabled Bill C-36, the “Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act”, in response to the laws struck down in December. These proposed changes are aimed at buyers of sexual services and “pimps”, and defines sex work as inherently dangerous and exploitative. However, the sweeping changes do not protect sex workers.

Rather than criminalizing the purchasing of sexual services in a bill unlikely to survive a Supreme Court challenge, Canada could look to alternative models of legislation such as New Zealand which decriminalized sex work in 2003. The move saw little increase in the number of people entering the trade, but sex workers have reported improved health, safety, and human rights.

Sonya JF Barnett, co-founder of After Bedford, and**Rachel, a board member from Maggie’s Toronto Sex Workers’ Action Project, will be joining us to discuss the impacts Bill C-36 on sex workers.

Join us on**July 21**at the Duke of York.** Doors open 7:00pm. Discussion starts 7:30pm.

Please RSVP on our Eventbrite page.

Details

Start:
July 21, 2014 7:00 pm
End:
July 21, 2014 10:00 pm
Event Category:
Government
Event Tags:
c36, Canada, prostitution, sex work
Organizer

Why Should I Care
Email:
salon@whyshouldicare.ca
Venue

Duke of York
39 Prince Arthur Ave Toronto, ON Canada
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,333
13
38
So what happens if you are jerking off at home while watching a webcam? Are the FBI gonna bang down your door and shoot you?
The Redcoats in Canada (RCMP).

The short answer is no, UNLESS the webcam AE is an undercover cop. (That would be very easy for them to do but what a waste of fucking resources).
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,706
2,995
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Annie BergeronOliver ‏@AnnieClaireBO 11m
#SenCa legal and constitutional affairs committee to meet Tuesday to study #C36 #cdnpoli
Expand


Annie BergeronOliver ‏@AnnieClaireBO 3m
Correction: The committee's study will begin on Tuesday September 9th. #cdnpoli #SenCa
Expand


that does this mean? will they refer the bill to the SCC?
 

DigitallyYours

Off TERB indefinitely
Oct 31, 2010
1,540
0
0
Annie BergeronOliver ‏@AnnieClaireBO 11m
#SenCa legal and constitutional affairs committee to meet Tuesday to study #C36 #cdnpoli
Expand


Annie BergeronOliver ‏@AnnieClaireBO 3m
Correction: The committee's study will begin on Tuesday September 9th. #cdnpoli #SenCa
Expand


that does this mean? will they refer the bill to the SCC?
No, this is the senate studying the bill.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/CommitteeMembers.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&Language=E&comm_id=11

http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/CommitteeStudies.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&Language=E&comm_id=11

http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeB...&ses=2&comm_id=11&Language=E&meeting_id=15371
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,333
13
38
There was a bill in Quebec to ban hijabs and turbans in public institutions and Quebec government argued that polls showed that majority of Quebecers supported the bill. The federal government said it would challenge the bill if it passes because the majority cannot overrule individuals freedoms.

Ah well this 'precedent' is very important to sex workers, especially those who do not consider themselves exploited. Thanks for posting this.
 

Fallsguy

New member
Dec 3, 2010
270
0
0
John Ivison: Prostitutes mulled exposing Conservative clients after ‘palpable’ hypocrisy over C-36

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...e-clients-after-palpable-hypocrisy-over-c-36/

Who’d have thought that hookers have more integrity than some politicians? A great many of you probably — and you’d be right.

Honourable members may or may not be more prone than the average person to seeking comfort in the arms of representatives of the oldest profession.

They certainly have more opportunity than most, being away from home and spouses for long periods of time. Some of the current cohort have succumbed to temptation and are well known to local prostitutes, according to the sex workers themselves.

“This is Ottawa, so of course people are talking. I’ll leave it at that,” said Frederique Chabot, a representative of POWER (Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work, Educate and Resist).

Some of those MPs are Conservatives, who are also in favour of criminalizing the purchase of sex — a position that would appear to require a considerable degree of moral contortion to reconcile.

Sex workers who participated in this week’s justice committee hearings into the new Conservative bill on prostitution say the feeling of hypocrisy was “palpable.”

Ms. Chabot says there was anger at the harshness of the legislative process. She said there has been discussion of using the political kryptonite at their disposal by divulging the names of MPs who are regular clients. “That tactic was brought up but was shut down by some pretty strong voices who said they could not stand being part of a movement that would want to do this,” said Ms. Chabot. “We have some integrity.”

Emily Symons, chair of POWER, said it is tempting to reveal the names of MP clients who are in favour of C-36, but she said she would be surprised if current sex workers would risk doing so. “It would be career suicide for them — no one would want to use their services,” she said. “Discretion is essential in the sex industry and the only time clients would be outed is to protect other sex workers.”

She said a sex worker who released a list of MP clients would be “literally martying herself for the movement.” But she said it is possible that a retired sex worker might take it upon herself to name names.

Some MPs familiar with the unlicensed stews of the capital may have had a nervous night after I tweeted speculation Tuesday that a list of client names is being collated.

The concept provoked much mirth from opponents of the Tory bill, with one correspondent hoping that the list included performance reviews.

POWER put out a Tweet saying it is not compiling a list of MP clients but Ms. Symons said she has heard a sex worker on the West Coast is talking to her contemporaries about gathering names. Yet, while the Ottawa group is not actively gathering names, it would not take much effort to do so. “They know which MPs are clients,” said one person familiar with the industry.

The message is probably already winging its way to Conservative MPs from the Prime Minister’s Office — from now on, the only guilty pleasures available in Ottawa are ABBA records and Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Therapy.
Does anyone remember Elliot Spitzer?
My dad used to say the biggest hypocrites could be found sitting in church pews on a Sunday morning.
Apparently, they can also be found sitting in the Conservative benches in the House of Commons.
What vile human garbage these people are!
I hope someone goes ahead and publishes this list.
 

Fallsguy

New member
Dec 3, 2010
270
0
0
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/..._deeply_divided_on_prostitution_approach.html

Secret poll shows Canadians deeply divided on prostitution approach


OTTAWA—A nationwide poll kept under wraps by the Conservative government shows Canadians are deeply divided over how Ottawa should deal with prostitution and contradicts Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s claim the proposed new bill has the backing of most Canadians.

The poll was obtained by the Toronto Star hours after the Department of Justice refused to release it Tuesday as hearings into the controversial anti-prostitution Bill C-36 ended.

The Star also obtained the results of in-depth focus-group research carried out in conjunction with the survey that shows Canadians are worried about driving prostitution further underground — risking sex workers’ safety — should the Conservatives move forward with criminalizing the purchasing of sex.

The Ipsos-Reid poll of 3,000 Canadians, commissioned by the Department of Justice, shows Canadians are almost evenly split on how the government should approach the complex issue of adult prostitution. Among the findings:

A slim majority, 51.2 per cent, thought buying sexual services should be illegal, while 44.1 per cent were opposed.

Nearly half of Canadians, or 49.8 per cent, believed selling sex should also be illegal, with 45.4 per cent opposed.


On June 9, when asked why his government has clung to the so-called Nordic model — criminalizing pimps and johns — and not entertained the idea of decriminalizing or going further and legalizing prostitution, Harper said, “We have consulted very widely on the legislation that is before Parliament.”

“The evidence is it’s very widely supported by Canadians,” he said. In French, Harper went further, saying, “I think that our consultations certainly indicate majority support for the actions we are taking.”

Most Canadians — 75.6 per cent — agreed somewhat or strongly with the statement “prostitution is harmful for women” whether it is legal or not, while 20.3 per cent somewhat or strongly disagreed. Another 4.1 per cent didn’t know.

However, the country is clearly split on how to tackle the buying and selling of sexual services, with a strong divide between men and women on how to approach the issue.

Asked which prostitution-related activities should be legal or illegal, 57.2 per cent of women said buying sexual services should be illegal, while only 44.9 per cent of men said buying sex should be illegal.

More men (50.4 per cent) than women (38.1 per cent) believed buying sexual services should be legal.

More women (55.1 per cent) than men (44.2 per cent) supported making the selling of sexual services illegal.

The gender gap finding is consistent with at least two other public opinion polls published recently by the Angus Reid group and, separately, by Forum Research.

The telephone poll, between Jan. 30 and Feb. 7, tried to gauge Canadians’ overall attitude to prostitution. The poll had a margin of error of 1.8 percentage points.

However, a more revealing picture emerged in a series of 14 in-depth focus groups in seven locations across the country that the research firm also did for the federal justice department.

It shows Canadians were concerned that laws governing the sex trade should not further endanger women who practice prostitution.

Most were unaware of current laws or the gap left by December’s Supreme Court of Canada ruling that struck down three specific provisions against prostitution-related activities.

(The high court said in a context where prostitution was legal, laws that prohibited communications, “living on the avails” of prostitutes, and brothels are an unconstitutional violation of prostitutes’ rights to liberty and security of the person. The Supreme Court ruled the Criminal Code offences barred women from hiring bodyguards or drivers, working in safer indoor locations, and forced rushed and furtive negotiations between clients and street-based sex workers who were less able to screen for drunk or violent “johns.” It gave Ottawa 12 months to either rewrite or drop the offences.)

When provided with that background, participants had trouble choosing what approach the government should adopt, though most expected the Nordic model — criminalizing the clients and pimps — would be the route Ottawa would take.

According to Ipsos-Reid, those who supported the Nordic model “liked that prostitutes would be viewed as exploited parties rather than criminals. They also liked the idea of directing prostitutes toward social services, instead of to criminal courts. This type of approach was seen as allowing government to focus on . . . addressing the exploitation of children and women (some with addiction problems) who may not be consenting participants in the sex trade.”

“However, many (especially men) did not understand why the Nordic model would make it a crime for one party to the transaction and not the other. Furthermore, some feared that criminalizing the clients/pimps would simply push prostitution activities further underground, making it even more unsafe for prostitutes,” the firm’s analysis stated.

In focus groups, there was “limited support” for criminalizing everyone including the prostitutes, Ipsos-Reid said.

“While some said this approach would be more fair or consistent than the Nordic model, there was still a concern that this approach would push prostitution further underground and do little to improve safety for prostitutes.”

In the end, the Conservative government adopted an approach inspired by the Nordic model, but also one that continues to criminalize prostitutes found selling sex in a place that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre, subject to a $2,000 fine or six months in jail.

The Conservatives call it a “made-in-Canada” model that balances the need to protect children and communities and the need to protect “exploited persons” or prostitutes who the government says are victims, but practicing an “inherently dangerous” activity.

Critics of the approach say it is even worse than the laws that were struck down.

Lawyer Kyle Kirkup, a Trudeau scholar at the University of Toronto law faculty, called the Conservatives’ approach the “Nordic model’s bigger, deadlier cousin.”

Last week, Justice Minister Peter MacKay, and his officials denied opposition requests for the polling research as the Commons standing justice committee studied Bill C-36, pushing its release to the end of July, the latest date possible under a policy that requires polls to be made public within six months.

Senior assistant deputy minister Donald Piragoff downplayed the survey saying “there were only a couple of questions on prostitution” and that it was merely “useful information” in formulating the bill.
This poll was taken before bill C36 and was apparently buried in a much longer survery. We also don't know how the questions were actually worded. I think it's pretty clear that a large majority of Canadians are opposed to C36.
 

Fallsguy

New member
Dec 3, 2010
270
0
0
John Ivison: Prostitutes mulled exposing Conservative clients after ‘palpable’ hypocrisy over C-36

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...e-clients-after-palpable-hypocrisy-over-c-36/

Who’d have thought that hookers have more integrity than some politicians? A great many of you probably — and you’d be right.

Honourable members may or may not be more prone than the average person to seeking comfort in the arms of representatives of the oldest profession.

They certainly have more opportunity than most, being away from home and spouses for long periods of time. Some of the current cohort have succumbed to temptation and are well known to local prostitutes, according to the sex workers themselves.

“This is Ottawa, so of course people are talking. I’ll leave it at that,” said Frederique Chabot, a representative of POWER (Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work, Educate and Resist).

Some of those MPs are Conservatives, who are also in favour of criminalizing the purchase of sex — a position that would appear to require a considerable degree of moral contortion to reconcile.

Sex workers who participated in this week’s justice committee hearings into the new Conservative bill on prostitution say the feeling of hypocrisy was “palpable.”

Ms. Chabot says there was anger at the harshness of the legislative process. She said there has been discussion of using the political kryptonite at their disposal by divulging the names of MPs who are regular clients. “That tactic was brought up but was shut down by some pretty strong voices who said they could not stand being part of a movement that would want to do this,” said Ms. Chabot. “We have some integrity.”

Emily Symons, chair of POWER, said it is tempting to reveal the names of MP clients who are in favour of C-36, but she said she would be surprised if current sex workers would risk doing so. “It would be career suicide for them — no one would want to use their services,” she said. “Discretion is essential in the sex industry and the only time clients would be outed is to protect other sex workers.”

She said a sex worker who released a list of MP clients would be “literally martying herself for the movement.” But she said it is possible that a retired sex worker might take it upon herself to name names.

Some MPs familiar with the unlicensed stews of the capital may have had a nervous night after I tweeted speculation Tuesday that a list of client names is being collated.

The concept provoked much mirth from opponents of the Tory bill, with one correspondent hoping that the list included performance reviews.

POWER put out a Tweet saying it is not compiling a list of MP clients but Ms. Symons said she has heard a sex worker on the West Coast is talking to her contemporaries about gathering names. Yet, while the Ottawa group is not actively gathering names, it would not take much effort to do so. “They know which MPs are clients,” said one person familiar with the industry.

The message is probably already winging its way to Conservative MPs from the Prime Minister’s Office — from now on, the only guilty pleasures available in Ottawa are ABBA records and Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Therapy.


They wouldn't even have to name names.
Just a simple press release to the effect :
"It has come to the attention of legal counsel for POWER that they are in possesion of a list of members of the Conservative caucus who are known clients of Ottawa Escort agencies.
The list includes:
A total of 27 sitting MPs.
20 of whom are married.
Included on the list are four cabinet members
Plus one member of the HofC Justice Committee that held hearings on Bill C36.
In the interests of public safety and to protect women, children, and other innocent victims, the names of these clients will not be made public until AFTER Bill C36 becomes law."

Feel that? Those are shock waves rumbling through the Halls of Power.
 

shakenbake

Senior Turgid Member
Nov 13, 2003
8,251
2,749
113
Durham Region, Den of Iniquity
www.vafanculo.it
Sorry about the cut and paste.

When Rhode Island accidentally legalized prostitution, rape decreased sharply


The number of rapes reported in Rhode Island over time is compared that in to three similar states. The red line marks the de facto decriminalization of prostitution. (NBER)

For decades, few people noticed that legislators in Providence had deleted crucial language from Rhode Island state law in 1980. It wasn't until a 2003 court case that police, to their chagrin, discovered they couldn't prevent prostitutes and their customers from engaging in commercial exchange.
For the next six years until legislators corrected their error, the oldest profession was not a crime in Rhode Island -- and public health and public safety substantially improved as a result, according to a new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The statewide incidence of gonorrhea among women declined by 39 percent, and the number of rapes reported to police in the state declined by 31 percent, according to the paper.
The study by Baylor University's Scott Cunningham and Manisha Shah of the University of California, Los Angeles contributes to an impassioned, long-running debate about prostitution among advocates for women's rights. Their work appears to be the first quantitative evidence that removing criminal penalties for prostitutes can reduce violence against women and curtail sexually transmitted infections in society generally -- and dramatically so. Yet opponents argue that legal prostitution would encourage traffickers to kidnap women and girls into lives of sexual slavery.
Shah and Cunningham did not explore this question in their paper, due to a lack of data.
"Operation Rubdown"
Lawmakers revised the state statute on prostitution in 1980, concerned that it was overly broad and could infringe on First Amendment freedoms. They went too far, accidentally removing the section defining the act itself as a crime. Other associated activities, such as streetwalking, pimping and trafficking, remained illegal.

Since prostitutes couldn't walk the streets, they had few opportunities to take advantage of the mistake until the advent of the Internet gave them another way to advertise. In 2003, police in Providence hit two spas in a sting officially called "Operation Rubdown." The women were staying off the street, and a judge ruled in their favor. Legislators revised the law in 2009.
There are a number of reasons to think that making prostitution legal might improve working conditions for prostitutes. If they were having a problem with a client, they could threaten to call the police. Not only could this threat reduce the risk of physical violence, but it could also allow them to demand that their clients use condoms.
Additionally, according to supporters of legal prostitution, unlawful streetwalkers have no opportunity to vet their clients before their hurried, clandestine encounters. A regular market for sex, whether online or in a brick-and-mortar establishment, could solve that problem. Opponents dispute these theories, arguing that prostitution is inherently violent and dangerous, whether legal or not.
Shah and Cunningham did not consider these questions specifically, but instead examined the consequences of decriminalization for the state as a whole. The two economists found that more women entered prostitution, particularly white and Asian women, and that the price of their services fell. In addition to the lower rate of gonorrhea infections among women, Shah and Cunningham estimated that decriminalizing prostitution prevented 824 rapes that would have been otherwise reported to police -- and presumably many more that otherwise would not have been reported in any case.


The decline in the number of rapes was so large that Cunningham and Shah felt obliged to examine their data with three separate statistical methods, but the effect persisted. The authors were eventually persuaded that their result was not a fluke, and that imposing criminal sanctions on prostitutes and their clients might cause violence against women. "The human costs are so big, if this is in fact a very real causal effect," Cunningham said. "I think we have convinced ourselves that we have done everything we can do rule out alternative explanations."
Is prostitution rape?
Possibly the most disturbing and surprising implication of these results is that men who commit rape would simply find a prostitute if doing so were less expensive. Cunningham and Shah considered and ruled out several other possible explanations for the decline in rape. The economists wondered, for example, whether police officers working on massage parlor stings had been reassigned to rape investigations, but it seemed they had not.
Melissa Farley, a feminist, psychologist and trenchant critic of prostitution, argued that Cunningham and Shah were simply misunderstanding the nature of paid sex. Prostitutes are often victims of abuse, whether it is perpetrated by johns or pimps, she said. If so, then the decrease in rapes reported to police does not really represent a decrease in the total amount of violence.
"Women in prostitution generally describe it as paid rape. That’s what if feels like to them," said Farley, who feels the study embodies a "reactionary worldview."


Farley, along with major international feminist organizations such as Equality Now and the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, worries that legalizing prostitution would make it easier for traffickers to operate, and that many of the new prostitutes who appeared in Rhode Island between 2003 and 2009 were unwilling participants.
"Demand fuels trafficking," said Kristen Berg, Equality Now's trafficking program officer. "With the demand for commercial sex, there's an incentive for traffickers to traffic women and girls to these locations. With increased demand, you’d expect to see increased supply."
Ronald Weitzer, a sociologist at George Washington University, disagreed, arguing that legal prostitution would reduce the financial incentive for organized crime to risk running afoul of law enforcement by kidnapping and transporting girls. "When something is prohibited, it allows organized crime to gain a foothold," he said, comparing the sex market to the markets for alcohol during Prohibition or for marijuana and other drugs today.
Weitzer studies European countries, which have been adopting lenient legal regimes that would be politically unthinkable in the United States. The Netherlands and Germany legalized prostitution in 2000 and 2002, respectively. (It is also legal in New Zealand and some Australian jurisdictions, and has been for decades in Nevada. All of these schemes employ various forms of regulation.)
Both parties in the debate draw their own conclusions from these experiments. Farley cites a recent study by European researchers purporting to show that legal prostitution encourages trafficking in people. Weitzer counters that the study improperly draws on data from countries where trafficking is defined and reported differently, and notes that the number of trafficking cases in Germany has fallen.


A legal dilemma
The model developed by Sweden and copied elsewhere offers a kind of compromise: prostitutes are not criminals, but their clients are. This is the approach favored by Donna Hughes, a professor at the University of Rhode Island and an eyewitness to inadvertent decriminalization.
Hughes, like Farley and Berg, views prostitutes as victims, not as criminals, but she was forced to make a difficult decision when Rhode Island began to debate amending the law.
The Nordic model, as Sweden's regime is known, was a political nonstarter in Rhode Island. Hughes, a prominent scholar of trafficking, was forced to choose between the status quo and imposing criminal sanctions on prostitutes. She eventually threw her support to the latter option.
"The situation was so horrible in Rhode Island, that the pimps and traffickers were operating with absolute impunity," she said.
Hughes's story shows why the debate over prostitution can become so contentious. In practice, the distinction between criminals and victims is often unclear. Many prostitutes and their advocates dislike both labels. They object strenuously to the view that they are not in the industry through their own choice but through manipulation or coercion.
"They have heard that, and they laugh at it," said Mike Kiselica, a Providence attorney who represented massage parlors and their prostitutes during decriminalization. "The frontline workers, the girls, they were free to move around, and would do so if one of the other places offered them a more attractive working environment or a better clientele," he said.


He said that even though the law had changed, police continued to conduct extensive raids on his clients, often involving superior officers, social workers and Korean interpreters. Although the police confiscated ledgers, calendars and cell phones, they did not find evidence of involvement by organized crime, Kiselica said. To his knowledge, few if any of the arrests made during the period led to convictions on trafficking charges.
The question of how governments should deal with prostitutes has been debated widely around the world. As European states have experimented with new systems, Canada and Israel have considered reforms as well. So far, the debate has not begun seriously in the United States, but perhaps it will in Providence.
Further reading:

  • "The War on Sex Workers," an essay arguing that the crusade against human trafficking harms prostitutes
  • A critique of the Swedish law in the journal Criminology and Criminal Justice
  • An essay by Melissa Farley arguing that prostitution leads society to condone violence against women

Reference 2 in Further Reading is very compelling against the Nordic Model.

http://lastradainternational.org/lsidocs/3049-Levy%20Sweden.pdf

Abstract
The Swedish criminalization of the purchase of sex aims to abolish prostitution through targeting
the demand, while decriminalizing those selling sex in an ostensible effort to protect sex workers –
constructed as passive victims of gendered violence – from criminalization. Drawing from authors’
research and that of others, this article discusses the sex purchase law (sexköpslagen), exploring

some of its impacts on the lives of sex workers and the dynamics of Swedish prostitution.

We argue that the law has failed in its abolitionist ambition to decrease levels of prostitution,
since there are no reliable data demonstrating any overall decline in people selling sex.

Furthermore, we argue that the law has resulted in increased dangers in some forms of sex work.Dangers are exacerbated by a lack of harm reduction services, which are seen to conflict with
Swedish abolitionism.

Moreover, discourses and social constructions informing the
sexköpslagen have informed the attitudes of service providers. In addition to specific outcomes of the law,
we note evictions of sex workers, problems with immigration authorities, child custody and the police, and briefly discuss these themes.

Where Sweden continues to attempt to export the
sexköpslagen to other parts of the world, these elements should be carefully considered.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
23,187
18,342
113
They wouldn't even have to name names.
Just a simple press release to the effect :
"It has come to the attention of legal counsel for POWER that they are in possesion of a list of members of the Conservative caucus who are known clients of Ottawa Escort agencies.
The list includes:
A total of 27 sitting MPs.
20 of whom are married.
Included on the list are four cabinet members
Plus one member of the HofC Justice Committee that held hearings on Bill C36.
In the interests of public safety and to protect women, children, and other innocent victims, the names of these clients will not be made public until AFTER Bill C36 becomes law."

Feel that? Those are shock waves rumbling through the Halls of Power.
If this were ever to be true it would be better than a two hour duo with two of the hottest SP's in the industry today. LOL
 

shakenbake

Senior Turgid Member
Nov 13, 2003
8,251
2,749
113
Durham Region, Den of Iniquity
www.vafanculo.it
TABATHA SOUTHEY
To Harper, a ‘majority’ (on sex) is not always a majority (on marijuana)


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ways-a-majority-on-marijuana/article19676424/

“I think that our consultations certainly indicate majority support for the actions we are taking,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said of the government’s Protecting Communities and Exploited Persons Act – their anti-sex-work legislation.
.........
That is exactly what the Supreme Court ordered.
See Post 917, above.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
23,187
18,342
113
Shame on this conservative regime of dictators and slimy Peter MacKay which based on his own definition is involved in prostitution (girlfriends he has had in exchange of his name and power) and a pervert. MacKay should be put on trail for his deceives, cover ups, fact twisting and false statistics, outrageous lies and most importantly for knowingly putting the lives of citizens in danger with draconian laws and cover ups and distorting the fact and hiding figures. Down with this conservative government.
Many pooners are among the voters and although probably silent around the dinner table are very pissed off with the Conservatives. I know among my own peers the Conservative brand is now being laughed at and often I hear terms like idiots, ridiculous fools, hypocrites etc. These same folks as myself had all once voted for these idiots. I'm hoping this creates a wedge issue and dismantles the reformers holding the reigns of power at the moment.
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,333
13
38
Many pooners are among the voters and although probably silent around the dinner table are very pissed off with the Conservatives. I know among my own peers the Conservative brand is now being laughed at and often I hear terms like idiots, ridiculous fools, hypocrites etc. These same folks as myself had all once voted for these idiots. I'm hoping this creates a wedge issue and dismantles the reformers holding the reigns of power at the moment.
Me too.
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,333
13
38
If this were ever to be true it would be better than a two hour duo with two of the hottest SP's in the industry today. LOL
It certainly would.

@ Fallsguy, did you create that or is that how the Ottawa escorts plan to release the info? It is brilliant.
 

triton

New member
May 16, 2005
12
0
0
does anyone know how a law, once its been enacted , can be changed or abolished completely in Canada. I don't think voting in a new government who would never have passed such a law in the first place is able to do this. Please tell me Im wrong in this assumption
 

triton

New member
May 16, 2005
12
0
0
would liberal or NDP actually be up to this. If they made it one of their platforms I wonder how that would go down with the public. They would need to be very careful in separating the activities of exploitation and the voluntary services adult women (and men) provide freely without coercion.
Perhaps a judge would strike down a conviction of a purchaser on the grounds of it not being in the abuser-victim relationship, the law is now claiming as the blanket scenario for all client-SP transactions. Could the criminalization , and all that goes with it, criminal record, loss of job, family etc not be seen as "cruel and unusual" in accepting for purchase something that is free of prosecution to sell? Could it also be considered gender discrimination against men? The government is essentially dictating morality through legislation.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
23,187
18,342
113
The justice committee accepted an amendment from NDP to have a review by department of justice every 5 years. So hopefully the next review would be done by a new government and decide to change the laws if the review shows negative results.
This is true but do we really want to wait 5 years?
 

Fallsguy

New member
Dec 3, 2010
270
0
0
It certainly would.

@ Fallsguy, did you create that or is that how the Ottawa escorts plan to release the info? It is brilliant.
It was more like wishful thinking on my part. If only!
This gang has to be exposed. I really hope someone somewhere publishes this list.
 

bobcat40

Member
Jan 25, 2006
570
10
18
A challenge at courts doesn't take less than 5 years.
If a challenge is filed at the Ontario superior court of justice right when the bill receives royal accent, it would probably take around 1 year before a ruling. This decision is binding in Ontario and would definitely provide a lot of relief if it is in the favour of the sex workers. Not quite the end of the battle but a major victory can be had in around a year.
 
Toronto Escorts