Leaderboard

So... reading stuff in this thread, and elsewhere on the interwebs, I've realized that there's another very important point that needs to be made. Yes, today's bill is a slap in the face, a kick in the balls, a punch to the gut, call it what you will. Not unexpected, perhaps... but it hurts, nevertheless. People are saying that the SCC decision in the Bedford case was a Pyrrhic victory; that the Bedford case was a mistake because it has just provoked the government into proposing more draconian legislation. These people are wrong. I'll say that again, because it's important: THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG. It is never wrong to fight injustice. It is never wrong to fight for a fair deal for those marginalized by society (both sex workers and their clients, in this context). It is never wrong to fight to help those who are vulnerable to exploitation. It is never wrong to fight to give people a better chance at life. The Bedford case was launched many years ago; while it was obvious that it would take a long time for a final verdict, there was no way to predict which party would be in power by the time it was resolved. We've had at least two general elections since it was launched; it's not the fault of anyone who fought and won that battle that the rest of us left Harper et al in power for all that time. And so, yes... now we have a backlash. This is not unexpected. But was it ever reasonable to expect that the path to enlightenment would be free of potholes? That nobody would throw roadblocks in our way? That we could win the war without ever losing a battle or suffering a setback? There's a long way to go. We've seen the government's opening salvo; now it's up to us to return fire. And some version of this bill, be it more or less bad, will probably become law in the not-too-distant future... and that'll be the end of another battle, which we'll have fought on fundamentally unfavourable ground. But after that, there will be legal challenges, and the campaign will once again move to the courts. And once in the courts, the fight will be different. There will be a level playing-field. Each side will have to back up their rhetoric with evidence. Logic will matter. Reality will matter. What can be proven will count. Unverifiable dogma will be dispensed with. And the prohibitionists will do just as well as they did last time around. We'll win. Again. And perhaps by then we'll have a sensible government, or at least one that cares more about the well-being of Canadians than their religious fanatics. Or perhaps the SCC will take the decision from their hands. Who knows? In any event, we're on the right side of history, and we'll get there in the end.

A few initial thoughts on this. Full disclosure: I've read Pivot's analysis of it, but not the bill itself (I've scanned the bill, and it's basically impossible to follow unless you're already familiar with existing legislation). Anyway... ...yes, it's bad, but I see no reason to panic. The sky is not falling, despite the government's wish to drop it on us. As Gia noted, this is not a final bill; it's an opening bid in a political process. Some provisions in there will be things the government really wants to make happen, but some will be stuff that's there purely to be negotiated away so that the government can claim they're being reasonable. Yes, the government has a majority... but negotiations will still take place and compromises will happen. An aside: given the government's current relations with the SCC, I can't help but wonder how much of this is less about sex work than Harper just wanting to deliver a solid "Fuck you" to the court. Obviously sex workers and their clients are just collateral damage here... On communication: it still talks about "any place", and the Internet (including email) is still not a "place". On advertizing: does the law prevent the hosting of ads, or just the placing of them? The former is completely unenforceable; contrary to what some others have said in this thread, anything outside of Canada is beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, as are any servers physically located in another country and run by a non-Canadian company. So, to pick three more enlightened countries at random: if we set up cerb.de, hosted on servers in New Zealand by an Australian company, the courts here are powerless. And for those who disagree with me on that... think for a moment about Wikileaks. Think about Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, and what they've published between them. Think about the stuff they've put online, and how much it has pissed off the most powerful and technologically advanced nation in the world... and on a subject far more important to The Powers That Be than sex work could ever become. Can they stop it? Can they shut those people down? Of course not, or they would have already done so. Given that, do you really think the Canadian government will be able to kill a board like this if it's hosted abroad, even if they were foolish enough to try? Now, if the placing of an ad is a crime... well, that's enforceable. But will LE have the resources and inclination to actually enforce it? Maybe, but that depends on the LE in question. And that only applies if ads stay the way they are today... if advertizing sexual services is illegal, then we simply do what's already common in the US: "Money exchanged is for time and companionship only (nudge, wink)." Problem solved: no sex advertized, no law broken. On the idea that this bill could kill the industry in Canada: well, I'm sure the government would love that to happen. But, really... look south. Even if this bill passed as written, the legal environment for sex work would still be less oppressive than that which exists in most of the US. Tell me, doom-mongers, are there no sex workers in the US? Are there no clients? And, bearing in mind the answers to those two questions, do you honestly think the industry will die here? It's called the Oldest Profession for a reason, and it's survived worse than this. Now, that's not to say there will be no effect at all. We may end up with a more US-like situation where providers have to be more careful about screening clients, and clients will have to be more careful about which ads they respond to, and newcomers on both sides of the fence will probably find it harder to get established. Some clients and providers may well be scared out of the industry, and it may decline in size as a result. But it will continue; I have no doubt about that. My gut feeling is that enforcement of whatever finally becomes law will, as today, be mostly aimed at street workers and their clients. Let's face it, this is about politics, and what drives politics is public opinion... and what drives public opinion is what the public sees. The man in the street probably doesn't know that the nice lady in the apartment upstairs is a sex worker, and therefore he won't complain to either LE or his MP about her; he's going to complain about the lady in the short skirt on a street corner, never mind the fact that she's just a random person meeting a friend for a night out and not a sex worker at all. Finally: as many have noted, this is all obviously going to be struck down by the SCC on the same grounds as last time, provided we can get plaintiffs for a test-case (or maybe two; it strikes me you'd need one case for the laws aimed at clients, and one for the laws aimed at providers). Sure, most people won't want the publicity... but it only needs one or two courageous and determined individuals. And a decade.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1183056-an-act-to-amend-the-criminal-code-in-response-to.html It's bad guys. Really bad.

I quite realize that I am preaching to the converted with anything that I write here. The legislation that has been tabled is still very recent and needs ample study before any of us will know exactly what it means in reality. Even at this early stage however there are a number of areas that are open to rational discussion. In any piece of legislation or law there is the intent and then there is the reality that will eventually be interpreted by a court, or in this case, probably multiple courts. In watching the news conference yesterday delivered by Peter MacKay his intent was very clear. His intent is to criminalize anyone who purchases sex, regardless of age, sex or circumstance. His bias and lack of knowledge was so apparent with his use of the word perverts to describe me as a client. He did refer to the ability for the use of discretion from the police and that could be taken as a positive, however, discretion does not substitute for solid legal standing. In a small and conservative jurisdiction such as PEI and probably in many other rural areas in this country, I CAN see the police focusing resources on visiting SP's and from them reaching to their clients with full intent to press charges. The intent of Mr MacKay is to save all of you ladies from yourselves. His equated you with drug users, abused women and women who are controlled by others all in the same quote. Enough said on that. I already have read here in this thread discussion and confusion about the ability for sex workers to advertise. His words were very clear - advertising will be liable to criminal charges if done in any public place, and in that exact sentence he defined a public space by including the word internet. That is clearly the intent, and it will unfortunately be in court that the interpretation will have to be made. I truly am distressed, and shocked by this legislation. I really did not believe that they would go this far - It's the Nordic model but way worse. The fact that they have done so leads me to believe that they will use their majority government to pass it as is. I see optimism in this thread that the Supreme Court will overturn this legislation as it did in the Bedford decision. The problem with that is that in order to take a case to court and then ultimately to the Supreme Court takes years and a great deal of money to do. In the meantime, we shall be working in an atmosphere that none of us find promising or beneficial or safe. It saddens me that this legislation has been introduced under the guise of protecting people when we already have in the existing criminal code every single law required to protect against violence, underage sex, slavery, illegal immigration and every single thing that he mentioned. Therefore the intent is not protection of sex workers but is designed solely to punish prostitutes and their clients. At the press conference the reporters asked some very pointed questions with answers that scared me. When asked about drivers and body guards, Mr MacKay would NOT say that was OK. Instead he said anyone who takes advantage monetarily of a prostitute will be charged. However accountants and lawyers for prostitutes he stipulated are quite OK. He's willing to take your tax dollars ladies. Again, there is intent vs the legal interpretation that has yet to be made in court. The entire rationale behind the Bedford decision was that the old laws increased the level of violence and impinged on the safety of sex workers. This new proposed legislation does not address that concern in the least and I fear may in fact make the profession even more dangerous than it is for sex workers. Last evening on the news I saw an interview with Emily Symons from the P.O.W.E.R. organization based in Ottawa. Kudos to you Emily for your courage, your eloquence, your emotion and may the political powers that be heed your words. Allow me to close with two thoughts. 1. How insane is it to pass a law that make the sale of something perfectly legal yet the purchase of it a major crime. Where is the logic? 2. I do not now feel like a criminal, and even if this bill is passed I will still not feel like a criminal. Many argue that this in reality will not change things. The bottom line however is this. No matter what we believe or feel, a law is a law, and we can only ignore it at our own peril.

The Harper government.

They probably made the first reading very extreme in the hopes of losing less in re-writings. This would never pass constitutional muster.

There was the Supreme Court decision that repealed the laws. There was lots of talk. There was discussion. There was supposed consultation. Now there is a proposed law. Talk is cheap and its easy to be upset, to criticize, to vent and to rant, and many of us have done this in the last 24 hours either in print or with each other or just silently to ourselves. The real question at the moment is, "Where from here?" If we choose to be like the proverbial ostrich that hides its head in the sand then perhaps what we see is what we get? Last evening I heard an interview with Emily Symons who was representing P.O.W.E.R., an organization of/for sex workers in Ottawa. She did a fantastic job of expressing many common thoughts that most of us here probably support. I refer to P.O.W.E.R because one side of the equation may well be the need for a sex workers united front and I am wondering if P.O.W.E.R. is that organization? I have been negligent in not becoming familiar with these organizations because they may become one of the ways that this legislation can be fought. In order to fight this legislation prior to its being passed and then ultimately having to go through years of court battles all the way to the Supreme Court is there a way to do so right now? Emotion is good but what will be required is patience and a willingness to follow process and procedure, as slow and as painful as that may be. I titled this thread, " Women Will Die," because those are the words that Ms. Symons used last evening as did one other researcher who was interviewed. If there were such a thing as a PR campaign, those words as a focal point may carry a lot more weight than words saying, "Legalize prostitution." Why this thread? It is because I want to help and I don't know how. There are many men who really cannot be visible for personal reasons. Would I want to be publicly visible, probably not, but would I if I felt it would make a REAL difference, probably. However you can help, man or woman, client or sex worker, this is the time to step up. What is the best way? Thoughts? Suggestions?

No one says you have to out yourselves. But staying under your rock helps no one. As Charlotte said in another post: Donate to sex worker orgs like POWER, Stella, and Maggie's. Go to protest events incognito. When prostitution/the law comes up around the water cooler, speak up and say that you do not support criminalization which only begets more violence. There are ways to speak up that do not out yourself as a client.

Backgrounder on Bill C36 - "Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act" http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=853729&crtr.tp1D=930 This only just happened. It's just a first reading. Summary and explanation of the proposed bill from Pivot Legal Society, who worked on the Bedford SCC ruling: http://www.pivotlegal.org/the_new_sex_work_legislation_explained

And lets hope it does die - a very embarrassing horrible death. Last night I was at the POWER social and one of the highlights was discussion on what sexual services entails or could entail - the possibilities are truly disturbing. Any type of sexual gratification or indulgence could be classified as a sexual service. Massage, Escorting, Webcam, BDSM, Strip clubs, wet tee-shirt contests, Porn, magazines, anime porn, sites such as youjizz (if its Canadian). I wonder maybe even the seeking arrangements type sites and services. What defines sexual.... is it any type of arousal? and service? well I can open the door and help carry my elderly neighbors groceries for her - I am doing her a service. Its a horrifying possibility. Now if the time for everyone to rally together and act. Write your MP, call, speak to your neighbors, regardless of context this is an attack on our constitution and a blatant slap in the face of our third arm of our government - the SCC which is the peoples last line of defense to hold their government accountable. The government has no right interfering in consenting, legal aged adults, sex life just as they have no right in our bedrooms, religious beliefs, and other basic fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS. Man oh man and I am PISSED at the sheer ignorance to even introduce this garbage as a potential new law.

That bolded bit is exactly the kind of thinking that keeps this movement from getting anywhere. If clients actually spoke up, as a group, and said, we are not perverts--the sheer numbers of you would send a very strong message. And please don't take this the wrong way, but sex workers have a lot more to lose than you do--like our lives.

Independents will not be punished for advertising. It's our body we do what we want. Communication in public still illegal (funny, wasn't that already struck down???). Working girls families are no longer criminals for benefiting from avails. Not AS bad. The clients being criminal thing is tough, but that's where established providers are going to be ok. Clients know they aren't a "sting". The new ones that pop up will suffer. The entire purpose of Bedford was to help street workers and this hasn't helped them AT ALL!!!!!

The Regressive Conservatives. Let's turf them in the next election.

What a tragic situation here. Simply no words. Things like this aren't supposed to happen here, so I think everyone (myself included) are pretty emotional. I was supposed to travel again today to Saint John for family business, but for obvious reasons I'm staying put. Waiting for a press conference that's starting soon.

Being a born & true Newfoundlander, "darlin" and "hun" are a part of my vocabulary and are terms of endearment. If a client has moved to the darlin and hun stage then it means my time with him or her has been both pleasurable and fulfilling. Another term I use is "my dear" and once again it is truly meant as an endearment. I never call strangers by these terms and never to anyone I do not feel a connection with.

This bill is so poor that deep down we all know it will fizzle out...eventually. Until that point it will be hanging over our heads and creating drama and angst and THAT is what it boils down to. It is THAT concept that I think everyone is upset about even if they haven't acknowledged it yet. It's more fighting and trying to get a voice heard. It's trying to convince people who won't listen that we are people who should have the same rights as anyone, that we matter. We are NOT all victims, some have chosen this. We make things safer for ourselves and those we share this industry with because no one seems to want to do it for us. Our government is trying to take away our safety, our livelihood and most importantly our voice. It IS politics, politics forsaking a large group of people and using them as a patsy for someone else's agenda. Even if it gets thrown out entirely, beaten down etc. It will be creating negativity and drama in our lives for the foreseeable future. It will impact our lives and our businesses and those of our clients. It will impact our society and the way we are perceived in the world. It will raise angry voices until the end, voices that are fighting on both sides for justice and to be heard. THAT is the reality of this legislature. What happens in the end matters but it's all the stuff between now and then that will have the greatest impact.

Peter MacKay

Seriously, now, did anybody really *not* see this coming as soon as the ruling in Bedford came down? Did anybody *really* expect a brighter, better world for all? I am fully supportive of the notion that the laws that existed were bad for women in the industry. I fully support the idea that those laws need to change, and not in the way they did today. But, I also know we live in a world where that notion will likely never be realized. They can't do this? Harper has a majority. He can do whatever the hell he wants. Negotiation? Under threat of what? It'll never pass muster with an SCC challenge? Great, so we'll live with this bullshit for 10 years, then see this cycle repeated all ocer again. Polls show overwhelmingly that Canadians reject these proposals? Be *very* wary of polls. They often tell you a lot less than they claim to. The reality is this won't change anything today, or tomorrow, but it will become law and change things for some time. I figure that MPs/spas will be the most visibly affected, with indoor indies flying further under the radar, but that's just an opinion. Either way, I don't feel that Bedford won anyone a whole lot when the laws that are put in place because of Bedford are even worse than those that were struck down. I'm ashamed to be Canadian today. But, then, I have ever since we elected that fat bastard into office in the first place.

Because I have anger issues that I've controlled fairly well over the years. But today, not so well. Give it a day or two and I can talk rationally.

OMG stop with the fear mongering!!! Seriously... Independents can advertise for their own sexual services without prosecution. Sheesh!!!!

Hope this helps. Further break down and possible future steps. http://www.pivotlegal.org/the_new_sex_work_legislation_explained Jas xo.

CBC News poll just said 12% support the new law, 86% do not. If this is true, there is good chances that (hopefully) the Tories will soften the laws

Don't give up. This can still be challenged and likely will be by the same group that brought the old law down.

You are SO correct with that statement Berlin. I really am in shock. I honestly did not believe they would adopt the Nordic model, much less make it even more extreme and more dangerous for everyone involved. I shall digest this a bit and write a proper response later on. I only watched the press conference and if I understood it correctly, highlights are: Men will be criminals. If you advertise on a place like Cerb you are a criminal. All women in this industry need saving.

You all ok?!!!! Xo please let us know, so we needn't worry!!!! What a scary situation :(

It is illegal to advertise prostitution in much of the usa but "escorts", "massage", "etc" ... Is paid for time and not advertising sex... So that is not illegal. It is just a matter of advertising with choice words in the usa. We are not called canada's prostitution recommendation board (cprb) things would change but they would just be pushing the industry underground, to think this would make it better, safer or make fewer people do it is ridiculous. I guess the owners of the sites could all just move to Amsterdam or Belize or some place like that and run the sites outside of the country. Maybe i can go too! ;)

to me its simple - gay rights are human rights and society has embraced it even though we dont all agree or see eye to eye. as a society we have embraced pro-choice views on abortion, though we all dont agree or see eye to eye we see an inherit right of the woman who is pregnant to choose. Sex workers rights are human rights to and the same societal and government policies and views that support gay rights and pro choice should be the basis for this issue.

I KNOW!!! LIKE REALLY DO NO Tweet! I was shocked to see tweets of positions and all. Really??? You going to tweet " there is an RCMP dude behind a tree" ?? Then watching CTV, we were told they wont disclose the location of a surrounded building, but yet split screen showed the location!! WTF??? How is that? I am no longer accepting phone calls from PPL I do not know on a regular basis until this is in it's conclusion.

Again, it is still not law. It will have to be reviewed by committee, three readings, Senate and Royal Assent. It will not be done before the summer recess. And then it could also die on the order paper. If they prorogue Parliament, then back to square one. Despite what has been said by the government's talking heads, a lot of those comments have been to appease the abolitionists, "See look, we are doing something!" knowing full well that it is not going to go through unchanged. The court of public opinion alone is going to go nuts with this bill. But they can blame public opinion and others for the changes. There are so many holes and missteps in this bill it is crazy. I am still looking for a definition of "Sexual service" but have not been able to find it. The old procuring law specified "sexual intercourse" but I can't see where sexual service is defined. So where do they draw the line on that? Are BJ's and HJ's OK? Could a lap dance be construed as a sexual service? (it really is in some ways) What about webcam girls? It can be sex, and you are paying. This is still a long way off, and I doubt it will be passed before the deadline on the SCC ruling, which could make things very interesting.

The manhunt continues at this time with the city virtually shut down, schools, Goverment offices, bus service, mail service all suspended until further notice. Not much traffic movement in this section of the city at all. Almost like a snow day but without any snow. Hopefully this concludes soon. Sadly just learned that one of the officers killed yesterday has three children. So,so sad. Still hard to believe what is taking place here. Truly a frightening situation for all the citizens of Moncton.

I do believe that we will just go back to the old school ways, " transactions are for time spent only, sex is free" If this is how we advertise, it is the gent's that will have to understand that NO COMMUINATION can take place on phone, internet . So there are no more questions of " do you offer bbbj, msog, " etc...the answer from us ladies will be " I do not charge for sex at all" When meeting a new lady, you will have to just go and meet blindly on what activates you may enjoy. You will only communicate once you are face to face at the location. Once your inside, no one can prove what is or is not taking place.

My thoughts and prayers out to the RCMP their families and friends Stay safe everyone RG

An SP advertises she is selling erotic pictures. $250 for a picture of her having intercourse. $100 for a picture of her giving oral sex. $300 for a picture of her having anal.... etc Offers a phone number where you can arrange to pick up the photos. At that location what happens after you buy the picture is between consenting adults. The John hasn't bought sex and the SP hasn't advertised sex. Has the new law been broken? If a model can be paid to have sex in the porn industry is the porn industry in trouble too? If not, can a creative SP advertise herself as a Porn industry sex instructor to train potential male models? LOL might be stretching things. The point is lets start thinking outside the box. no pun intended

It is always possible they could alter the bill, but it is extremely unlikely. It would require significant public backlash. Sadly, I don't think nearly enough people are engaged on the issue to have more than a passing opinion. When this new cycle ends most talk will end too. I don't the Conservatives care if this bill won't stand up to court scrutiny. It is consistent with their dogma, and it will survive long enough to get them through the next election. That's all they care about: making sure this isn't an election issue, and it won't be a significant one because while the other parties may feel differently they don't want to walk through this mine field either.

The purpose of Bedford wasn't to argue for decrim for escorts. It was to fight for the safety of street workers. And now, thanks to the Harper government, street workers will die. This is disgusting. Things will be ok in the long run for independent escorts. But agencies are through and street workers are in inherent danger. I truly fear for their lives :(

Okay, how has nobody mentioned today's epic turd from the government in this thread? If anything sucks, that does.

The ladies should be happy....Peter MacKay is trying to save you and retrain you to get out of prostitution...he cares (detect my sarcastic voice here) But me and other men...just a bunch of pervs Pissed off...saw PM press conference...not happy at all RG

The RCMP just requested via twitter that everyone turn on their outside lights please. Stay safe out there peeps.

I am staying the hell inside! glad I didn't schedule anything today!

Update, some places in Oromocto also locked down, Hospital, schools and a home hardware...weird!!! so I am praying that this is a one man show! Please be safe everyone:(

Absolutely sex workers have to more to lose overall. Your clients will never speak together as a group though. If even a hint of this activity reached my "real life", I'd lose my home immediately and my job would soon follow. That's true whatever law gets passed, or if there's no law at all. That's just the way it is, and I know that's true for a lot of other guys reading this. It may be unfair, but that's reality. The fight will be waged by sex workers, and we will stay underneath our rocks.

I thought I read a news report that it was an unrelated incident.

Things are reeeeaaaaly quiet for now. No recent sightings that I heard of. SWAT entered perimeter.

I think any time you can experience companionship with someone it can help with loneliness Unfortunately we tend to think if loneliness as the absence of people in your life... i can tell you from experience you can be surrounded by people but still live a lonely existence.... if a regular meeting with an SP helps meet that need then yea it us a great way to deal with loneliness. Just my opinion.

Please don't be sure. I don't

Ha ha, I wonder what old Elmer thinks of his son's proposed legislation (shhhhhhh!) As far as Canadian law reaching abroad, yes in many countries it would, but good luck getting anything out of Russian-based providers. Canadian officials better get used to hearing "Fuck you" in a Russian accent. lol. Canadian ISP providers are more than happy to hand over your surfing habits to law enforcement without a warrant, so using something like TOR might help maintain your privacy. It wouldn't be illegal to view ads offering prostitution online, but who knows what the future holds? But I guess it doesn't matter where an escort advertises, Canada based or foreign sites, as the fact is that a Canadian provider is advertising to Canadian customers and that's all that matters. :( But what if Canadian providers advertised on foreign-based sites to foreign customers, and if Canadian customers just happened to call her, then oops, not her fault because she expressly said in her ad, "Non-Canadian customers only"? I don't think the Nordic Model is as successful as claimed. I don't think it stops prostitution, more likely it outsources it abroad. Prostitution is permitted and popular in Denmark, and some of its popularity is no doubt due to men visiting from the other 'Nordic Model' countries. Also, going further abroad, I'd like to know just how many Scandinavian men take vacations to Angeles City, Pattaya, San Jose, Medellin, etc. And yes, we men are automatically made criminals, but what else is new? If anything pisses off Quebec and rekindles separatism, this may just be it! lol It's sad, as it takes a certain type of person to work in such an environment, but I can see the back rooms of strip joints being used much more often to schedule after hours rendevous after a very touchy-feely vetting process.

Today's announced legislation is a pretty large turn off. Peace MG

This morning my Twitter feed indicated a few people had "favourited" tweets that I had written... BUT... among them were George RR Martin (author of Game of Thrones) and Christopher Moore (author of lots of crazy ass stuff).... of course a couple of them were awesome providers that I adore as well..... kinda cool!!!