drlove

I was thinking something similar earlier today. While it's all well and good to stick to established SPs as some have suggested, if one of those SPs were to be investigated and LE gets access to a client list or correspondence pertaining to engaging in the hobby, you could still get nailed, unfortunately.

That's exactly what I was thinking... I feel the Conservatives are intentionally trying to punish as as our behavior goes against their moral code of conduct. How childish is that??? I wish the SCC could just step in right now and end it.

When the Conservative caucus met on Parliament Hill in the last week of May, MPs were given a thorough explanation of the new prostitution bill â?? not only by Justice Minister Peter MacKay, but also by the prime minister. Stephen Harperâ??s intervention was designed to shore up support for the bill, in the face of staunch opposition from a number of caucus members. A rump of social conservatives have made it known they are unhappy with the bill â?? and would have preferred outright prohibition, banning both the sale and purchase of sexual services. For a number of Conservatives, the billâ??s ban on the purchase and advertising of sex does not go far enough. But Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay presented the bill as a compromise between the harder line of the prohibitionists and outright legalization. â??It was done to bring people into the fold,â? said one MP. Mr. Harper told the Tory caucus the bill was crafted to survive a constitutional challenge. In an effort to rally support, he said that if the courts throw the new bill out, the government will have no option but to introduce full legalization of prostitution.

Yep...I'm guessing the Supreme Court Justices aren't too pleased with the cons right about now...

Do you have the link to the current prostitution poll? This one is for something else from 2013

Well, it's not even about whether charges would stick... an arrest (however unlikely) gets a guy's name and /or photo in the papers and the news. That alone would be enough to potentially destroy someone's family or career. Even if they get off scot free, the damage is done. Additional Comments: Any idea how long? There are posters on another board saying a challenge could take between 5 to 10 years before everything is said and done.

Maybe so, BUT I was a strictly 100% outcall hobbyist. Therefore, I never broke the law while hobbying. With the new laws, it will be impossible NOT to break the law for anyone who chooses to continue, and the penalties are severe. At this point, I feel the risks would be too great... Additional Comments: It would definitely require a re-education in practices for everyone. Right now for instance, hardly anyone uses the phone and the preferred method of contact is text, PM's and e-mails. Hypothetically speaking, I'd hate to get a potentially incriminating text / e-mail etc. from a provider from force of habit for instance.

The truth is, I would not be able to continue in my profession with a criminal record, so unfortunately I will be forced to quit.

Well, yes and no... if the bill fails, they still have to come up with SOMETHING to take its place, otherwise they run the risk of the industry being defacto decriminalized, which the Cons do not want.

Obviously the whole thing's a sham... at least when the real results are released it will give the opposition some ammo. Maybe the general public will start to clue in as to how underhanded this government is. Furthermore, I feel that Redheaded Raven got it right when she said it's simply a case of the government trying to tell people what they can and can't do. Now, perhaps we can use this... that is, while society at large may not buy into the plight of our industry per se, I do believe that they will rail against the idea, as a principle - that the government is trying to impose antiquated views on citizens in a democratic country, thereby limiting our freedom of expression.

Likely because the actual results contravene their spin on them.

Exactly! I don't think the bill as it stands now will be passed. I feel there will be some amendments, although nothing really in our favour. The justice system in Canada is odd... First, an unconstitutional set of laws are challenged, then the Supreme Court strikes them down. Next the government comes up with a set of even more idiotic laws that fly in the face of the SCC ruling. Here's the kicker: The SCC cannot intervene until someone who has standing challenges the new laws yet again, and the issue winds itself through the courts until it reaches them. The entire process may take years...

You're probably right. I'd say the main difference for me is that the old laws offered a legal loophole whereby outcalls were (and still are for now) 100% legal. All that changes in Mackay's new bill.

Well if that's the case, then they are putting THEMSELVES at risk by voting for Mackay's bill!

The only reason I asked is because someone on another board said it would be law by about June 20th, but that makes no sense. After all, doesn't a bill need to be read about three times, then get referred to a committee and then have the Senate vote on it before it receives royal ascent? Hard to believe that all that can happen in two to three weeks!

How long before bill C-36 becomes law? I want to get as much fun in as I can beforehand.

Ok.. fair enough. You've made some well argued points, and upon reflection I agree with you. My only question is, if and when the new law is eventually challenged and likely struck down, what happens then? Will the government then have no choice but to decriminalize the industry and adopt fair laws, or will they seek convolute things even further by enacting another set of misguided laws, or will they simply decide to criminalize the lot, and hope it sticks?

First off, whether an act is "morally repugnant" is subjective. One may ask the question, by who's standards? Yours? Mine? Morality is not something that can, or for that matter should be legislated. It just opens up too many avenues for interpretation and thus too many variables. Thus, law should be based on empirical evidence. Furthermore, if it is not possible to criminalize the acts of the purchasers without resulting in dangers for the prostitute, then the act should not be criminalized in the first place. Let's not forget that the spirit of the SCC's decision was ostensibly to reduce harm to sex workers, and protect their liberties and security of the person. Lastly, if the government states that there are already inherent dangers associated with the act itself, would it not be the onus of the government in the interest of "protecting the vulnerable" as they've said, to reduce dangers that sex workers face? If so, the government's logic is flawed, and any additional harms pursuant to criminalization are not justified.

That's exactly it! Additional Comments: That's a good question... I wish I knew more about how the law works in this regard. Would they need 100% proof that sex took place for monetary exchange, or would 'reasonable suspicion' by a judge in a court of law be enough to convict a patron? I'm not sure to be honest with you. Any legal experts on the board?

Excellent clip... thanks for sharing. This raises the issue of how long a new challenge will take from start to finish. They said "a few years", but I'm hoping it won't take that long. Any guesses?

I'm hoping that the Canadian public in general will wake up and get on board as well - not even with this issue per se, but the fact that this Conservative government is slowly chipping away at the premise of what makes Canada a great democratic country. Perhaps in a general sense then, voters will not stand for actions from the Cons that fundamentally take away our freedoms and infringe upon our civil liberties. Now, in regard to the prostitution issue, the one thing we have in our favour at the moment is that the media are railing against the bill, and in the process offering then public at large an insight as to what's really going on here...

Exactly! They're biting the hand that feeds them, and shooting themselves in the foot at the same time... Of course, those spineless jellyfish would never have the gumption to stand up to Harper. I think it's time to have some fun with it.. Time for some SPs to out some politicians! I'll get the popcorn... :vf:

What about having someone with standing file an injunction? Also, is there a way to have it referred to the SCC? Granted, I don't know what would be involved,or if it's even viable, but I wanted to put forth some ideas just the same.

Are you for real?

Even I didn't think the Conservatives would be this vindictive. It's almost like an act of revenge on the entire industry for someone daring to challenge the law of the land. I can just picture it: "We'll get them for this!"... ad infinitum. Additional Comments: So, if the SCC struck down the old laws as being unconstitutional, and we already have laws in place that protect against exploitation/trafficking etc. then why would the SCC not have precluded Parliament from passing new laws? Surely they would have known the kind of crap that would spout from the Conservative party.