drlove

[INDENT] [URL="http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/2015/10/22/message-from-terri-jean-bedford/"]http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/201...-jean-bedford/[/URL] [B]Message From Terri-Jean Bedford[/B] Posted on 2015/10/22 I am the Bedford in Bedford Versus Canada, where Canadaâ??s prostitution laws were struck down. Many have been in touch to ask for my reaction to the results of the recent federal election. I have as a result prepared the following remarks for activists and others. I confine my remarks to how the new government should proceed to change the federal legislation, Bill C-36, now in place to regulate the â??sex tradeâ?. The landscape for the future of Bill C-36 has changed. The political party supporting Bill C-36 was rejected by voters. The party that voted against C-36 was elected. The new prime minister has pledged to listen, and to make evidence based decisions, instead of imposing laws which reflect some specific morality. The new Parliament must withdraw C-36. Nothing should be passed in its place, but if anything is it should promote the safety and dignity of sex trade workers, and allow them to protect themselves. Morality based considerations should have no place in the discussions where consenting adults are concerned. To that end there should be no doubt about who at what age is entitled to do what in private, for money or not. Aid for those wishing to exit the trade should be available. It could be made available by enhancing various federal programs. Human trafficking or forced entry into the sex trade should be stopped and can be enforced via laws not specific to the sex trade. At the same time any harassment of consenting adults buying or selling sex acts should be stopped. The government has no business interfering in the sex lives of consenting adults. A national deliberation on how these goals can be achieved should occur. This would clear away the myths, selective or unverified evidence, and stories that cloud proper discussions. So it is understandable that time will be required, if something like a round table or public inquiry or further parliamentary hearings occur. That requirement for time does not diminish our astounding victories these last few years. Let us remain active in the national debate to come, and move beyond the bumps in the road that may remain. We owe that to those who fought for our cause before we did and when we did. The cause of advocating for sex trade workers is now in good hands and, if I am able to, I will continue to help when asked. Terri-Jean Bedford [/INDENT]

[LIST=1] [*][INDENT] [B]Group threatens Liberals with new legal challenge over sex work law[/B] - [U]with video[/U] Laura Stone Politics Reporter Global News October 30, 2015 5:12 pm [URL="http://globalnews.ca/news/2309848/group-threatens-liberals-with-new-legal-challenge-over-sex-work-law/"]http://globalnews.ca/news/2309848/gr...-sex-work-law/[/URL] OTTAWA â?? A legal group that helped fight for sex workersâ?? rights at the Supreme Court of Canada will launch another Constitutional challenge if the Liberal government does not repeal the resulting law â??immediately,â? its lawyer says. Brenda Belak, a lawyer at Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver, says her group is prepared to go to court if the Liberals donâ??t repeal the new law crafted by the Conservative government after the Supreme Court struck down the previous laws prohibiting prostitution as unconstitutional in December 2013. â??Thereâ??s no reason to wait on repealing the law,â? Belak said. â??We had a very clear message from the Supreme Court of Canada that the old laws were unconstitutional. The new laws do the same things that the old laws did. Thereâ??s no reason to wait in order to bring in alternative legislation. The government can move now to repeal the law and thatâ??s a fairly simple procedure. Thatâ??s what weâ??d like to see done.â? But it remains unclear when or if such a move would take place. Although the Liberals opposed the Conservativesâ?? Bill C-36, it is not known if they would refer the Harper law to the Supreme Court for guidance, or repeal the law and replace it with something else. A spokesman did not immediately respond to request for comment. The Liberal party has previously said the new law, which passed last fall, is likely unconstitutional. Former justice minister Peter MacKay defended the bill as necessary to protect exploited people, and an Ontario review of the legislation upheld it. â??I am not at all convinced that this bill would protect the women and men who are engaged in sex work,â? Charlottetown Liberal MP Sean Casey, who was re-elected, told the House of Commons in June 2014. â??I would also suggest that Bill C-36, in all likelihood, violates the charter with respect to section 7, on life, liberty, and security of the person.â? Casey, a lawyer who was the partyâ??s justice critic, is considered a contender to be the new justice minister when Justin Trudeauâ??s cabinet is sworn in next week. The new law regulating sex work in Canada was crafted in response to a Supreme Court challenge from sex workers Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott. Pivot was an intervener in the case. The Supreme Court struck down the old laws relating to â??bawdyâ? houses and living off the avails of prostitution as unconstitutional. But many experts believe the Conservativesâ?? replacement legislation, which criminalizes communicating and advertising about sex work as well as prevents workers from banding together, is also unconstitutional and further pushes prostitution underground, thus making it more dangerous. Defence lawyer Michael Spratt says the issue is a good example â??of the conundrum that the Liberals are going to find themselves inâ? when it comes to the Harper governmentâ??s justice agenda. â??There are numerous pieces of legislation that the Liberals strongly opposed, in my view rightly so, but were passed into law.â? Spratt says these changes will not come quickly. â??A new challenge launched to Bill C-36 would take months and years to wind its way through the court,â? he said. â??Legislative changes will obviously take time to make their way through Parliament. So I think no matter what happens thereâ??s going to be some lag time before these issues are fixed.â? But Belak believes the Liberals can move quickly to at least repeal the Harper governmentâ??s laws. â??Itâ??s something that weâ??d like to see done immediately,â? she said. â??Sex workers fought for basically seven years to get the old laws revoked, and during that time many people were put in danger, many people were forced to work under risky circumstances, and thereâ??s no reason to continue to subject sex workers to those conditions.â? [/INDENT] [*] [/LIST]

I'm curious as to how much of an impact C-36 has had on the industry in general...

Today on the news, reporters were talking about Conservative bills that are due to be repealed / amended, according to Justin Trudeau. They mentioned C-24 and C-51... that's it. Nothing said about C-36 whatsoever, so it's up to us to get the word out and keep the pressure on!

I have an idea.... If that were a likely scenerio, what if we just asked the Liberals to refer the isue to the SCC? I believe the high court would undoubtedly strike down the current legislation. Then we would be in position where the government could simply let the exiting laws fall, without the need to write new ones which could potentially be voted down by the Senate. In effect, we would have a defacto decriminalization of the industry. Admittedly, my knowledge about the courts and the legislative process is a bit scant, so if there is an error with my reasoning, please point it out. However, it seems like it could work...

As a non smoker, I'll respectfully stay out of the fray. However, Judging from Justin's recent comments, it would seem that Trudeau has already made up his mind on the issue. Now without trying to hijack this thread, I just want to draw everyone's attention to the above qoute. In that respect, it would seem Trudeau is on the right path. Why then, when it comes to an issue like sex for money, does everyone seem to balk? (ourselves excluded, of course). It's really the same issue, isn't it? We're consenting adults, and the SCC would seem to agree with the aforementioned quote as well. That is why they struck down the old laws, in an effort to pave the way for those who work in this field to be safe. There is an article which mentions that the Liberals are committed to repealing bill C-36, yet I've also heard Trudeau say in an interview in 2014 that he 'considers prostitution a form of violence against women.' How ironic... the real violence will come as a result of our current law. All I'm saying is, if he's so gung ho about the marijuana issue, then he should feel the same about scrapping C-36. That's all... (my rant for the day).

The Liberal victory, at least for me, is bittersweet. I can't help but wonder what things would be like had the SCC decision on prostitution laws come down this December, as opposed to when Harper was in power. I've seen articles stating that the Liberals would repeal C-36, but as others on the board have stated, it's likely a low priority. As such, they would likely spend little, if any political capital on it. If that assumption is correct, we are stuck with a bad law until it is challenged. However, it's a brand new day with a new government in power. I hope Justin proves me wrong and does implement concrete change by repealing, or amending C-36. At the very least, they could refer it to the SCC and let them decide. I'm still optimistic that Trudeau will do the right thing, helped along by continued pressure and reminders from us, the people. Justin would do well to remember the words of his father - "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation!" Just my opinion... Additional Comments: Ok this is wierd... I meant to say the bedrooms of the nation. For some reason it won't let me edit it! *lol* Additional Comments: Ok... so I guess the "B" word is censored too! :icon_razz:

Not to mention, he has the gall to stay on as an MP to boot!

The Liberals are now in majority territory... As for Stephen Harper - stick a fork in him - He's done!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but short of repealing, or at least ammending C-36, I don't see how a Liberal or NDP government could really temper the way the law is applied. Enforcement is done on a municipal level, so how much LE resouces are allocated to something like C-36 would depend largely on a particular Police Department's / Police Chief's priorites, would it not?

Assuming a Liberal or NDP government is elected, what's the best way to lobby them to at least refer the issue to the SCC, and /or have the bill repealed? If all we can hope for is that the next government tempers the way the law is applied, it doesn't really do much good. It's similar to the old laws where 'keeping a common bawdy house' for incalls was rarely, if ever enforced. Though the point is, it could have been, on the whim of LE. That would hold true as well for C-36 - the law will still be the law. I'm sure the above posters are correct when they said that this issue won't be front and center for a new government since it won't serve their current political agenda. However, I'm sure no one here wants it to fall on deaf ears and once again be cast by the wayside, either. So I ask, what's the way out? Are we truly stuck with C-36 until someone has the gumption to actively challenge it, (e.g. a replay of Bedford) or is there another alternative?

I'm staying positive and holding out hope that if the Liberals or even the NDP are elected, they will honour their pledge and repeal bill C-36, instead of just paying lip service in an attempt to garner more votes. It's obvious to anyone that C-36 is a bad law.

She was on Dr. Phil not too long ago with her husband.

I hope so... it seems like the entire line of articles from this source are far right wing, religious ideology. But, then again I wouldn't put it past Harper either. I'm betting that one of the other parties will win and follow through on their pledge to repeal C-36. I'm all for LE going after those who exploit women, but leave consenting adults alone. Judging from the general feedback about the new law over the past nine months, it would seem most see it the same way.

[B]NDP, LIBERALS, GREENS COMMIT TO REPEALING ANTI-SEX-WORK LAW[/B] [I]Conservatives' Bill C-36 harshly criticized for not protecting sex workers[/I] BY JONATHAN GOLDSBIE SEPTEMBER 27, 2015 5:40 PM [URL="https://nowtoronto.com/news/election-2015/ndp-liberals-greens-commit-to-repealing-anti-sex-work-law/"]https://nowtoronto.com/news/election...-sex-work-law/[/URL] At Thursday night's Proud to Vote debate, NDP, Liberal, and Green representatives pledged that their respective parties would repeal Bill C-36, the Conservatives' anti-sex-work law, if they form government. The issue, which had barely been mentioned in this election, is apparently a matter of importance for all three of them. The LGBTQ issues forum, held in the cabaret space at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre, invited each party to send a candidate of their choice, regardless of the riding in which they're running. And so there was Craig Scott, the NDP incumbent in Toronto-Danforth, facing off against the Greens' Chris Tolley from the same riding as well as Bill Morneau, the Liberal hopeful in Toronto Centre. The Conservatives opted not to send a delegate, which was both unsurprising and somewhat frustrating, given that as recently as last month the party was literally waving the LGBT banner. The CPC place on the stage was left empty, with moderator Brenda Cossman asking off the top that participants "not engage in a kind of Clint Eastwood debate with the chair." The Conservatives appear to have nevertheless noticed the event, with Jason Kenney suddenly invoking C-36 as a wedge issue the next day. The new law, written in response to the Supreme Court's 2013 decision to strike down certain earlier statutes that endangered the lives of sex workers, flew in the face of the ruling by going even further to criminalize sex work and push those who practice it underground. NOW Magazine is part of a coalition opposing the law, which also criminalizes the placement of sex advertisements by third parties. (My partner is the co-founder of one of the 10 groups that organized the debate.) Here are candidates' complete responses to the question of what to do about C-36, minus those parts of their answers that were drowned out by applause. Below that are a handful of other highlights from the debate, touching on a range of issues that directly or indirectly affect LGBTQ people. [B]Xtra's Kevin Oâ??Keefe:[/B] Recently, Bill C-36, which was ostensibly created to protect sex workers, passed through our last government. However, sex-worker advocacy groups have criticized the bill as unduly endangering the lives and livelihoods of sex workers. Will your party look at revising or repealing this bill? [B]Scott (NDP):[/B] We fought it very hard, just as we had C-51 and the â??Unfair Elections Act,â? and thereâ??s no way â?? as Tom [Mulcair] said with respect to another subject two days ago â?? thereâ??s not a snowballâ??s chance in hell that we would allow that legislation to stay on the books. Itâ??s done. Thereâ??s a couple starting points, but one of them has to be, when the Supreme Court exercises moral leadership within a constitutional framework and sets out principles that everybody can use as a reference point for good-faith debate about what the best approach is and that itâ??s totally ignored, for purposes of nothing but playing to the base â?? throwing blue meat, if you like, out to the base â?? was one of the worst experiences of my three years since being elected. And it was my privilege to be part of the team, even though Iâ??m on another committee, to be called in on occasion to lead some of the questioning on the bill that completely, completely does not understand the idea of sex workersâ?? rights. So absolutely youâ??ll see an NDP government making sure that we figure out what to do with the Supreme Court judgment that does not involve keeping this legislation. [B]Morneau (Liberal)[/B]: Well, on this thereâ??s no disagreement. We would want to get rid of this bill just as the NDP would, and think that â?? now, I know thereâ??s no Conservative here â?? but think that this is a continuing approach that the Conservatives seem to be doing, which is dismissing our courts and dismissing the judgments of our Supreme Court on issues that really matter to Canadians. So this is completely unacceptable. Itâ??s a bill that puts people in danger, and we would not stand for it. [B]Tolley (Green)[/B]: Repeal it. We would repeal it. We feel that the most important thing is the legislation has to be there to protect the sex workers; itâ??s not about protecting the public. We need to talk and formulate legislation with sex workers. Right now, we prefer the model thatâ??s based on the New Zealand model â?? a very, very strong model. We would prefer something along those lines, where basically what youâ??re doing is youâ??re protecting the sex workers, not criminalizing it. At the same time, we need to also have structures in place so that if somebody does want to leave the business, they have the support and the ability to live any life that they want. At the end of the day, everybody has free choice, and we just need to make sure that everybody is protected and safe. [B]Moderator Cossman (a U of T law professor and director of the school's Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies):[/B] So on this question, I actually risk turning into Clint Eastwood and just saying â??Shame on that chair. Shame.â? BEST PANDERING WITH HEART AND SINCERITY [B]Tolley, in response to a question about support for queer theatre, arts and festivals:[/B] When I went to school, I started off doing a major in theatre and a minor in political science. And during that time, I looked at history, and I saw that throughout history, it wasn't the businessmen, it wasn't the bankers that overthrew governments, that started revolutions, it was the artists. So I think the most important thing is that we start to get the artists up here on this stage and involved. That is critical. BEST REGRET [B]Scott, in response to a question about a guaranteed annual income:[/B] It's not in our platform, at the moment. So a guaranteed minimum income, as a specific policy, is not. It is something that has been bouncing around in very serious ways in policy discussions for decades in the NDP, and it's something that I honestly hope, that I personally hope, and I think everybody in my caucus would like to see a very good discussion. And I salute the Greens for putting it on the table. BEST CALLING OF BULLSHIT [B]Morneau, on supporting refugees:[/B] I know the Conservative's not here, but it's worth taking a moment on this issue to call out Stephen Harper. In the debate that he was in a week ago, he claimed that they did not cut back refugee healthcare, which is just a flat-out untruth. I was chairman of the board at St. Michael's Hospital when that happened, and I can tell you that there were refugee claimants who actually were out of healthcare when that happened. And I was so proud of the doctors at St. Mike's, because they decided to cover those people for healthcare, anyway, out of their own incomes. And I can just tell you, that's the sort of thing that Canadians do when our government makes really, really awful decisions that are jeopardizing people. BEST PLEA FOR A NECESSARY PROGRAM [B]Tolley:[/B] We've been nurturing a pharmacare program for a very long time â?? very, very well costed out, it's very robust, a lot of work's gone into it, a very strong timetable. It's been very, very important to us. And it was something that was resonating with the public. Then last week the NDP suddenly mentioned they have a pharmacare program. And at the end of the day, I don't care if it's the Green Party that brings it in or if it's the NDP or the Liberals â?? who cares. We just need it. My concern is, the NDP's program right now is very thin, there's no timeline, and all I can say to you is: if, in the rare, odd chance that the Green Party doesn't form a majority government, all I say is, please, I hope, and promise me this is not just to get votes. This is too important. BEST MAKING US WONDER WHAT ELSE HE THINKS IT COULD POSSIBLY MEAN [B]Morneau:[/B] Am I a feminist? Well, you know, it's a good question, and I guess I have to think about how you define that. I mean, am I a strong supporter of women's rights? Absolutely. Am I a feminist? That makes me a feminist, I guess. BEST DEMAND FOR STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION [B]Scott:[/B] We have to move to a proportional representation system.â?¦ We have to give our political system, for all of its problems, the chance to reflect the decency and the core values of Canadians, rather than a system that can be gamed so that one party can actually get in and get 100 per cent of the power (because of the structure of our Westminster parliament) with less than 40 per cent of the vote, and completely misrepresent the value orientation of the entire country as a result. And the only way we're gonna move forward on everything we've been talking about tonight â?? and on something as serious as the issue of our times, climate change â?? we need to be able to constantly elect parliaments where we have a fighting chance for consensual, collegial, and spirited debate across political parties, where not one party can dominate in a way our current system allows.â?¦ Under our current system, we will constantly be in danger of future Stephen Harpers.

"Calling Dr. Love" by Kiss

I've had dishwashers from GE and Whirlpool - very quiet and never an issue.

I have a good mix of investments and real estate, well diversified. I'm not worried about any fluctuations in the market since I still have a relatively long time horizon. I plan on taking my CPP early and continuing to work, since I enjoy it. It actually feels more like a hobby which I happen to get paid for. More than that, though. It's all about being productive. It doesn't matter what you do, just do something. Perhaps it's just my work ethic, but I don't ever want to retire! I'd be bored stiff after the first week lol. I've always thought that it doesn't matter if you have one dollar, or a million dollars - the idea is to get up and go to work every day, even if you don't have to. After all, at the heart of it - working is its own reward.

https://youtu.be/cmrWghYVbOM

There was an 'Outer Limits' episode on this very topic back in the 90's... did anyone see it? I just remembered it featured a really hot blonde!

I was just about to say that! Kind of puts a new spin on the song, doesn't it? *lol*!

So, is there an effort underway at the moment to launch another constitutional challenge? Even though I'm officially retired, in principle I shudder at the thought of Canada having these oppressive laws on its books for another 10 years or so... :(

You can always ask for references, and speak to other SP's about your prospective client to get a good sense of how things stand. Remember, your safety and comfort level takes precedence over everything else.

I do believe our Conservative overlords would frown on such an endeavor...

Way to go, Patrick! I would love to see this aired on both CBC's 'The National' and CTV National News, complete with an in-depth panel discussion to bring awareness to the Canadian public as a whole. Also, this should be required viewing for all police forces across the country.