Leaderboard

Would every body please relax?? This is proposed legislation. We have seen what has happened lately with that. First off, the DOJ took a punch to the balls with the SCC ruling. This is the counter-punch, the first, knee-jerk reaction. A sort of trying to see who is in charge the legislative or the judicial arm of our government. Did the punch hit its target? We don't know yet. We see it coming but it needs to go through a bunch of hurdles to hit on the chin. (read the other very informed posts on the subject) So all of this is premature. Just because Mackay got up and said it and proposed it, doesn't mean that it will become law. It could be a tactic. We all need to be vigilant, express our opinions and talk a lot. You don't have to say you see escorts to voice an opinion that the government's current proposal is anti-human rights, anti-freedom of choice. You don't have to say why you have the opinion, just express it.

I'm sorry, but I am really tired of hearing the "I told you so"s and "the laws shouldn't have been challenged", etc etc etc. Yes, the proposed laws are scary. Am I happy about clients facing criminalization? Absolutely not. And I don't think that they will go through the House of Commons and the Senate intact, as they are, because they are recreating some of the same problematic laws. This is not going to be an easy road. However, I am fully supportive of - and incredibly grateful to - Bedford, Scott, and Lebovitch. They outed themselves and challenged laws that made the likes of Pickton possible. Laws which made the most disadvantaged and marginalized workers bear >90% of criminal charges. Laws which made it difficult for us to screen and work safely. "We" may have had it "good", but not everyone did. And not everyone has access to an indoor location, a laptop, a cellphone, and a reliable internet connection. Not everyone has the ability to work under the radar as "we" do. So, yes, I understand that some people are upset because this has the potential to impact their status quo. Sorry. No, not sorry. I'm willing to bear with this bullshit if it means that the people who are the most at risk might have a better ending. I'm not a happy camper, either, but I recognize why this had to happen, and I am very glad that it did. I manage to make an impact in small ways, which work for me and which do not involve outing myself. Part of that is going to be raising funds for the upcoming fight - I have a pig bank that is being put to good use (also, ironically) ;) It's already been mentioned in this thread and across the forum and social media, but consider donating to a sex workers' rights organization. If you don't want to donate directly, I'm sure a lovely provider or fellow hobbyist can help make it happen.

... I hate to say "i told you so" and i think everyone was ignoring me in hopes that the laws were challenged and would be somehow made better (you can look back at my posts as i warned everyone again and again) i warned everyone that no matter how the law was changed it would not fair well. If anyone actually thought a conservative government would NOT do this (or would listen to public opinion) is delusional. It looks like they are asking for the most extreme (to appease the conservative extremists and settle for a middle ground so they can say they tried).... But you never know! Keep this in mind when you next vote! Yes, its horrible. Yes, its worse then i even expected. Yes, we may all be in for a horrible ride. We are all scrambling on our end... meetings with lawyers and trying to make sure we are prepared for the worst.

Really shouldn't listen or put a whole lot of value in some posts on boards as far as I'm concerned. Kathryn above gave you the appropriate information regarding a new bill becoming law.

Amazing 8 minute radio interview with sex researcher Chris Atchison who conducted the Sex, Safety & Security study. He hits every point right on target. So perfect. You also get to hear Peter MacKay, in his own words, describe his odd example of just one way that prostitutes could be criminalized under proposed law. Making sex buyers 'perverts' reinforces sex trade stigma, says researcher http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Local+Shows/Ontario/The+Morning+Edition+-+K-W/ID/2462327728/

The bill needs to pass through several steps in the House of Commons, then again more steps in the Senate. No need for disaster planning just yet ;)

Wow. I could write pages, but most of what I would say has already appeared in this thread -- Phaedrus in particular has largely voiced my own impressions. I am really surprised that the bill is so blatantly puritanical and willfully ignorant of the facts on the ground. I think our government is just naturally regressive on social issues and especially sexual issues, but I didn't think they'd take a position that's so empty-headed and counter to the bigger social tide. ("Perverts"? Really? Fuck.) Maybe the prospect of an election tipped the balance -- this will certainly play well to their base. I have no idea what happens next, but I can imagine the thing passing into law as-is, then immediately being challenged. Then a long dark period of several years until that case winds its way through the various courts. Guess we'll see. Berlin: thanks for asking clients to speak up on this issue without necessarily "outing" ourselves. I'd started to do that, but now I'm going to take it more seriously. I can probably do that with less risk than some others (I'm unmarried, for one), so it's a bit easier for me to undertake. But yeah, given the real-world impact of public ignorance that this bill seems to represent, I think it's time for me to shift over to a more consistent life rather than a fractured one, and to speak up more on a subject that's important to me. My part may be small, but I'm going to play it -- smartly. Hugs to all. (Or handshakes and manly backslaps if that's better for you.)

I have not been incriminating myself by writing on CERB. I did not mean any of it literally. I made it all up. I did not really do any of those things that I wrote about. I was just kidding around. I did not realize that you would take me seriously. You guys are so gullible! (I think that ought to cover my tracks) :wink:

If in fact we disagree with the proposed legislation Bill 36, then it is incumbent upon us to do what we can to prevent its passage or to have it significantly amended. As many have mentioned, quite correctly, there is a long way to go before it becomes the law of the land. In the meantime as Charlotte indicated in her response in this thread, "Women Will Die," there ARE actions that we all can take. We must follow process and procedure. This afternoon I sent the following email to Mr. Mulcair, leader of the NDP, Mr. Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr Jean-Francois Fortin, interiim leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and to Ms. Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada. Mr. Mulcair, I am writing with regard to the recently introduced proposed legislation, Bill C36. I am very distressed over this legislation on a multitude of different levels. I am hoping that you and your party will do everything in your power to either defeat this legislation or at a minimum try to have it referred to the Supreme Court prior to its debate in Parliament. My concerns are in many areas, however there are two that I shall mention primarily. 1. The Bedford decision overturned laws as being unconstitutional on the grounds that they cause potential harm and increase the threat to the safety of women engaged as sex workers. I believe that the INTENT of the unanimous decision was to protect sex workers by providing for safer conditions under which they can work. If passed, the newly introduced legislation will in reality drive the industry further underground and I believe that it will increase the danger and threat to many women who work in this industry. This applies in particular, but not solely, to street workers. 2. The Supreme Court of Canada should be inviolate. At times they may make decisions with which we do not agree, however, their status and their decisions should be regarded with the utmost respect. THAT is a cornerstone of our constitution and way of government. With this legislation, the present government is ignoring the Court and blatantly refusing to accept the sanctity of its decisions. This legislation is not about the safety of sex workers, but rather it is about the present government putting itself above the highest authority in the land. I trust that you will consider this issue very carefully and work not only to help stop violence against women, but also support the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. With Respect, My Real Name I have yet to decide whether to write a similar but adapted letter to Mr. Harper. Truthfully, I feel it would not help a bit. Over the past few years I have invested a great deal of money into seeing SP's and if I can do that then I can help to support sex worker organizations. I shall be making a monthly donation, probably to P.O.W.E.R., to help support them as they work against this legislation. I REALLY do not want to wait years for the whole thing to work its way through the Supreme Court once again. Once it is proclaimed as law, that will be what will happen. Do what you can do comfortably, but do it now. MN2

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISinfo/Faq....E&Mode=1#ID0EQ

I plan to incriminate myself this weekend ;-) RG

what an incredibly thought provoking perspective. http://www.gauntlet.ca/2014/06/how-bill-c-36-makes-things-worse-for.html How Bill C-36 Makes Things Worse for Prostitutes, And Why That Might Be Constitutional The Background The Supreme Court of Canada said that the prohibition on brothels and the prohibition against communicating for the purpose of prostitution, and the risks to the security of the prostitutes that arose from those provisions, were grossly disproportionate responses to the public nuisance of prostitution in public. The Supreme Court of Canada also said that prohibiting living off of the avails of prostitution was overbroad, in that it caught some people who were not exploiting prostitutes, like cab drivers and pharmacists. The Supreme Court ruled all three sections unconstitutional violations of prostitutes' section 7 Charter right to security of the person. The Supreme Court gave the government one year to re-write the laws. The News Yesterday, Justice Minister Peter McKay introduced Bill C-36. Here is what the legislation does with regard to protecting the safety of prostitutes while avoiding their exploitation and public nuisance. It will be illegal to purchase sexual services. It will be illegal to communicate for the purpose of purchasing sexual services. It will be illegal to communicate for the purpose of selling sexual services in a place that might have children nearby. It will be illegal to advertise sexual services other than your own. It will be illegal to profit exploitatively from the purchase of someone else's sexual services. This would mark the first time in Canada's history that the purchase or sale of sexual services will be criminalized. The government suggests that by this they will target the "perverts" (johns) and protect the "victims" (prostitutes). As long as they don't do it near kids, and as long as they do it alone, nothing that the prostitute does will be illegal. Therefore, the government logic goes, they should feel safe going to the police for help. Bill C-36 follows SCC on Living off the Avails The Supreme Court said that the "living off the avails" provision was overbroad. I think the government has narrowed it considerably, making exclusions for people who live with prostitutes, people who are providing services to prostitutes that they would provide to anyone else, people who are legally or morally obliged to provide services to prostitutes. Bodyguards, receptionists, these people are now not breaking the law if they know their client is a prostitute. It seems the intent of the SCC has been respected there. Bill C-36 Makes Things More Dangerous for Prostitutes, not Less The Supreme Court also said that the dangers associated with prohibiting prostitutes from communicating for the purpose of prostitution were not justified for the benefit of avoiding a public nuisance. The government has responded by making all communication near kids and all communication for the purchase (not the sale) illegal. So prostitutes are now legally permitted to communicate with johns, but those johns remain prohibited from communicating with them. The conversation, therefore, is still illegal. But only the john has any legal risk. This should work really well to protect prostitutes' safety, so long as the johns don't have any problem with going to jail. With regard to brothels, they are no longer prohibited. However, all of the conversations and transaction that would happen in the brothel are criminalized. And a brothel, by its nature, tells the police where these crimes are happening. Again, this should work really well to protect prostitutes' safety, so long as the johns don't have any problem with going to jail. If, as one might expect in the real world, johns are not interested in going to jail, then they will not be interested in communicating in places that are safe for the prostitutes, and they will not be interested in frequenting known establishments where they can be arrested at any time. Therefore, they will not allow the prostitutes to avail themselves of these new found protections, and prostitutes will be worse off. Why it Might Be Constitutional Can the government do that? Essentially turn around and make things worse for prostitutes? Maybe. You see, by criminalizing the purchase of sex, the government has changed the purpose of the laws. They are no longer merely to get rid of a public nuisance in the form of prostitution in public. They are now laws directed at ending the exploitation of prostitutes. That objective is much more serious, and can justify a great deal more infringements on the prostitutes' security of the person. Consider the analogy to drugs. Imagine that a drug user complained that making possessing and purchasing drugs illegal forced them into unsafe environments in order to purchase and use drugs. That person would be correct. But it is the very act of purchasing and consuming the drugs that the government has deemed morally repugnant. It is the drug use itself that is criminal. It is supposed to be dangerous to commit crime. Previously, the government had not said, through the criminal law, that there was anything wrong with prostitution itself. Now, prostitution is a crime, at least for the purchaser. The fact that it is not criminal for the prostitute is not a reflection of approval by the government of the prostitutes' actions, but comes from the belief that in the case of most prostitutes, they do not truly exercise free will in deciding whether to provide sexual services. I don't know if that belief is accurate, but it was reflected in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. So the fact is that prostitutes are doing something that has been deemed sufficiently morally repugnant to be criminalized, but have been exempted from prosecution out of concern for the exploitative nature of the relationship. The government will also undoubtedly argue that it is not possible to criminalize the acts of the purchasers without resulting in dangers for the prostitutes, and that the dangers arising from the criminalization of the act are justified in light of the dangers associated with the act itself. Will they win that argument? I don't know. But it is not the same argument that was made in Bedford, and so we can expect that there might be a different result. Posted by Jason Morris at 10:17 AM

This is more of a fear mongering thread. Posts are dated and right now its not illegal ... so asking this question is silly. If a law changes or a new law is introduced nothing you did in the past before that law is submissable. you did something in the past before the law was made you never did anything illegal.

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.

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

I don't think you have anything to worry about just yet. The bill has to pass through Parliament & then Senate so it's not a done deal. I think the constitutionality of a new bill (especially this one) will be under the microscope. LE probably don't make any investigative moves retroactively prior to new law being enacted. They would be chasing their tails trying to prove criminal activity before something is actually considered a criminal offense. They also have to decide how to enforce new law. Will they use this forum as a tracker tool - they probably already do but so what?.... How many Senators (remember Wilbur Keon?), Ministers, Politicians, Backroom boys are clients themselves? What do you wanna bet those guys are gonna be chewing their nails about keeping their jobs if they pass an unpopular or stupidly draconian bill.

No more than a gentleman writing a recommendation now about a lady he saw at her incall which is technically illegal Or ads for escort agencies...I'm no lawyer but I believe illegal (living off the avails) Whether it's current law or new law, don't expect the police all of a sudden to be extra motivated to go after anyone in this lifestyle, be it companion or lady The new law is merely a political response to the SCC decision If it's going to be a new law enforcement priority, then expect the government (federal, provincial and municipal) to increase spending to give to police departments the resources needed to enforce the new laws. If they didn't see it as a priority before, don't count on it as a priority now Just my opinion RG

http://news.ca.msn.com/local/montreal/quebec-passes-dying-with-dignity-bill

A white tanktop and bright pink undies. I'm lounging! ;)

This is my responds from my own FB page... I can not find words, Thank you seems too pale, R.I.P seems to ordinary, Please know that these lives have made a real change in everyone's life, and I think we can all say that what police do for us, even when giving us a speeding ticket, is for the safety of our community! If anything good can come out of this, it is to know that we need to take notice of someone when they are sending us red flags, when you know a person is off meds and acting strangely....we need to inform someone! Even if you think it is a joke, if after many weeks or months with his type of posts made, someone needs to speak up. If it is not true, great, but let a doctor assess him! We also learned, not to take police/RCMP as just another worker, they really do go into some events with out knowing they may not come home! Let us learn this!!

It seems that everyone is getting rather paranoid about this new legislation. It still remains to be seen how the final legislation will appear, after all, the new voting and cyber bullying legislation have been changed due to pubic pressure. I must admit that the advertising sections surprised me. Even once it gets to be proclaimed, it will take both the police some time to figure out what resources they want assign to enforcement and how to implement it. After all prostitution is illegal in the US, but the ladies have found ways to promote them selves and there are boards similar to CERB that are still up and popular.

Like everything.... our first reactions to change will always be to focus on the things that we don't like but I am pretty sure that as time passes the implications from this terrible piece of law making will not be as bad on the majority of us who in my opinion represent the high end of the industry. It will unfortunately be devastating to the street workers who ironically it is being sold as a savior for. We at the high end will adjust and continue... will it hurt yes but we will be ok. Those who wish to look into the rear view mirror and suggest that the challenging of the law was in hindsight bad should stop and think about that. This is a social justice issue... and it like most other similar issues will be won by brave individuals standing up and demanding their rights.... in the process there will be setbacks... but the fight must go on and we should be very careful we don't start to think that our short term interests are more important than the big picture. I applaud those individuals who have the guts to stand up and fight.. especially when I hide here in the shadows in will to do more than write a post. It was not a mistake or a miscalculation it was a major first battle so let's stop shooting at our own fighter. Just my opinion.

What reviews? They are recommendations, did they really take place? Pete? Pete who? There is no law in place right now, so get on with your desires, fulfill them and stop worrying, I know I am :)

What if my ad read "Hey gents available for adult companionship for a fee. Bonus free sex!!" Seriously what could they do? In the meantime I am hoping the Senate will give this bill the very utmost consideration to not see it pass. Because as the OP suggests women (sex workers) will die.

Ohhhh Jason.... Here is my suggestion..... IF IF the bill passes ? Go live the lifestyle and get fucked anyways ! Everyone's doing it !! Just adapt to change :) !!! If you want to be boring and miss the good things in life ....get into politics..........

Here is a great breakdown from Pivot Legal: http://www.pivotlegal.org/the_new_se...tion_explained This is a PROPOSED bill. It still needs to pass through several readings and stages before it can become law. http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISinfo/Faq....E&Mode=1#ID0EQ

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.

^^This is the clearest thing I hope clients hear today. I'm always amazed by how many of our clientele are politically aligned with parties that abhor them? Honestly, it's nauseating. Kim

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.

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.

I think it's preposterous to think there is funding available to run sting operations on the thousands of active sex workers currently in Canada. But just in case, I made it all up too :D

Hi darling, I haven't been in the biz for long, and it's not the point here, but I have met or cummed across such wonderful ladies either live, text, or in the chat room or that other sexy ladies have told me about! Now with that damn sucking prostitution bill gentlemen U need to build your list of regulars, favorites before the end of the year hun! My own favorites, either having been with them or soon sexually or just ones so damn nice in their PMs or texts R: and ladies with whom I've talked,etc... if U don't appear here just respond back to let the gentlemen know U R hot and sexy! - MatureJen (BBBJ or FS duo partner and hell of a great lady!) - Bella Fontaine (BDSM duo partner, a gorgeous and so friendly SP!|) - Leigh Munroe (hell of a kind lady with (apparently!!) hell of great cock sucking expertise!!) - Mature Angela (haven't met her yet but so damn nice in her PMs and texts!) - Jessy Celeste from MTL but visiting Ottawa often (gorgeous beauty and oh so friendly and lovely!!) - Raven Rain (a lovely, soft and nice 38 DDD beauty U won't want to miss!!!) - Bianca Jaguar (a most stunning and hot lady from MTL but visiting Ottawa often!! -Carrie Moon (now In Niagara but travelling and such an hot and SO nice lady!!!) - BeautifulDelilah that I have to be a fantastic lady and that I believe with the few exchange we've had - Nicoletette Vaugh, Berlin, Jody Wild, Maddy, Sexxxy Rebecca, Cleo Catra, Nathalie Lefebvre, MeaghanMcleod, Fortunateone, CuteOazabutton - never met them but gentlemen so damn nice in their PMs, etc... really worth while ladies!!! I am sure I am forgetting ladies I have exchanged with somehow and honestly babes I am really so sorry but just respond to this thread saying we have so the gentlemen know how to build their list of regulars after that damn bill!!! LOVE U ALL ladies!!! And thank U for being part of my daily life somehow chéries !!!! Barbara xxxxooo Additional Comments: Forgot, among others, LuxeMuvari, Ms.Samantha and EmilyJ and I am sure others will cum up!!!

I know how you feel but with so much if this industry built on Trust and Confidential what do you do.... Maybe all the ladies seeing Conservatives should just give them a call and remind them if the conflict between their public political position and their private behavior.

This law is replacing the old law as a result of the SCC decision and as such, jmo but it should be treated as nothing more than the government's political response to the SCC, not some newfound "mission" from the sanctimonious Conservatives to save prostitutes and prosecute us pervs. Peter MacKay is willing to allocate twenty million dollars to save the ladies He made no mention of additional resources allocated to the police to go after us pervs though Twenty million really isn't a lot, if PM truly cared about saving ladies, much more money would be allocated My opinion, the law enforcement resources that already exist will be allocated to enforce the new law...because the old law isn't there to enforce. As for police just waiting to arrest someone, there were already enough prostitution related offences on the books that they could have made lots of arrests, if so motivated The new law pisses me off, PM pisses me off, the Conservatives piss me off, I'm pissed off being labelled a perv by the Justice Minister (most people take the time to know me before labelling me LOL,I've never even met him)....but that said, I really don't think anything will change from an enforcement perspective. The police don't have the manpower or resources to enforce it A rambling RG

That was exactly my thought...How many of these goverment members have already seen a provider...and still do... BJ

My thoughts on Bill C-36. I'm heartbroken and disappointed. http://lovely-nathalie.com/blog/

Just a Thank You to Emily Rushton for a much needed escape and for being unavailable for me again ;-) You are a very special lady and Girl Next Door and your friendship means a lot, more than you know RG

Given the crazy week this industry has had, I have found renewed inspiration and wisdom from a very simple, yet insightful Japanese proverb. "Fall seven times, stand up eight." Jas xo.

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?

I have said this elsewhere, but you don't have to be a client or identify yourself as one to have strong opinions on this. It is a civil liberties issue. Consenting adults etc. It is the start of a slippery slope. We have laws against exploiting minors, trafficking, slavery, exploiting anyone. Why do we need a law so specific? Because politicians are lazy. And you can blame the Tories all you want, there are supporters of this in all of the parties. They are afraid to be stigmatized so they will say what they think people will want to hear. It is not about sex, it is about basic human liberties and dignity.

I'm all with you, Kathryn, and my donation will go to POWER of Ottawa and Pivot Legal Society.

Those politicians are hypocrites. No one uses escort services more than them and now they want to fight against prostitution....

Many of us already do pay income tax. This is not what these laws seek to do. The government clearly stated their intent was to end prostitution; it says so right in the bill itself.

But i think you can't offer that moon, because he's planning to take away all the advertising venues too, isn't he. So how will anyone know what we are offering, with no place to offer it? Chicken and egg lol

The discussion is now moot...even BBBJ's are now safe for ladies to offer because PM has made it legal to sell sex but not ok to purchase it so no matter what is offered no perverts, er clients will be around to purchase any sexual services PM has eliminated the worlds oldest profession and saved you ladies from us pervs. You can offer the moon but no clients now to buy because it's illegal Isnt Canada a better place now (this posted with sarcastic voice) RG

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gee will we still be able to go to MP's after the Zombie apocalypse? Should we take a shotgun just in case?