drlove

Sad but true, unfortunately.

Thanks for sharing, Sophia. Remember that it's always darkest before the dawn. I feel we have several factors working in our favour. The Conservatives were in such a rush to get a bill out that they didn't take the time to assess what went into it logically, critically and analytically. Instead, they went with their own moralistic, puritanical views and attempted to craft these into law by introducing this bill. Not only is it unconstitutional, but the media are all over it, thus giving the general public a sense of what the real issues are. Furthermore, regardless of how Canadians as a whole may feel about prostitution, they value their rights, freedoms and civil liberties. In fact, most respondents to online news articles in the "comments" section are in favour of, as they put it "legalization". Now, without getting hung up on semantics, this simply means that they feels consenting adults should be free to engage in paid sex if they so choose without the government looking over their shoulder. Canada is a free and democratic country - one of the best in the world if you ask me. I'm sure no self respecting Canadian would stand idly by and watch their intrinsic human rights as provided for under the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms trampled upon. As I mentioned in another thread, we live in a secular society, and the value we place on the intermingling of church and state as institutions has largely diminished. No one wants to have antiquated, puritanical ideology rammed down their throats, as it's anathema to independent thought. That was for another time, which has long since passed. In short, there exists a dichotomy between the lobotomized existence the Conservatives would have us live, and the reality of how things really are. I'm sure Canadians are smart enough to figure it out, and eventually Harper and his flock will be compelled to adhere to the overall social climate of this day and age, whether they like it or not.

Did Mackay really call us perverts? I thought he said "perpetrators" but I could be wrong... I watched him in question period when he said "Cue the scary music, Mr. Speaker". It was then I knew for sure we were doomed...

Sean Fine - Toronto Kathyrn Blaze Carlson - Ottawa "The Conservative government is answering a Supreme Court ruling that struck down prostitution laws with a tough new law that would ban the selling of sex anywhere that people under 18 are found, or in advertisements - raising questions about how sex workers could safely ply their trade. Police would be given new powers to search for and seize advertising materials for the sale of sex, a provision that could be used to raid escort services, which now operate virtually in the open. And from steep fines to jail sentences as high as five years, the government would try to send a message to johns that buying sex is a crime. But the law also has potential jail sentences of up to five years for sex workers who advertise." *** Now, I know this bill just came out, but it seems to me the journalists who wrote the article are already getting their facts mixed up. First of all, was under the impression that sex workers are still allowed to advertise for themselves under the new bill if they are profiting from their own work. Secondly, where did the notion of jail time for SPs come from? I thought the government said SPs were victims and therefore would not be charged. I'm confused...:confused0024:

She was on Cerb for awhile, but haven't heard much from her lately.

Yeah, I noticed she had some specials on last week, but I was literally working around the clock so I didn't have a chance to see her. I'm hoping to schedule an outcall with her soon.

Speaking of which, do you know if Mya (Blonde barbie) is still around? I tried booking an appointment over the phone but she did not answer.

What about getting a lady's phone number or e-mail and arranging something that way instead?

So has anyone seen her yet? I may TOFTT but not for awhile since my work schedule is absolutely crazy right now. I'd love to have some feedback from other members in advance, though.

I'm guessing the last part of your post was cut off, but target them for what? Under a Nordic model, SPs can't be charged.

Oh ok... there's a link to an agency website which also advertises another girl as well - unless they are a couple of indies working under a collective banner.

I might, but I'd like to find out a bit more info on the agency first.

I just checked out her pics... Hannah's smoking hot! Has anyone seen her yet?

Congratulations! I only found out about this site by accident in 2008. Otherwise, I'd have signed up a lot sooner - who knew that the site has been around since 1996?! Thanks, Mod!

Hmmm... I wonder if they'll do the same with whatever prostitution law gets unveiled later this year... OTTAWA - Stephen Harper's hopes of a quick fix for the scandal-plagued Senate were blown to pieces Friday by the Supreme Court of Canada. In a historic, unanimous decision, the top court advised that the prime minister's proposals to impose term limits on senators and create a "consultative election" process to choose nominees cannot be done by the federal government alone. Rather, the court said such reforms would require constitutional amendments, approved by at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population â?? a route fraught with political landmines which Harper had hoped to avoid. Moreover, the court set the bar even higher for abolishing the Senate, something Harper has threatened to do if his reform agenda is stymied. Getting rid of the chamber altogether would require the unanimous consent of all 10 provinces, the eight justices said. Harper sought the top court's advice after a number of provinces strenuously objected to the federal government's plans to proceed unilaterally with its reform proposals. The court accepted the argument of most provinces, that the Senate is a key part of the political bargain struck at Confederation and, consequently, can't easily be tinkered with â?? no matter how compelling reform or abolition might seem in the wake of the Senate expenses scandal. "The Senate is one of Canada's foundational political institutions," said the ruling, which was attributed to the court as a whole. "It lies at the heart of the agreements that gave birth to the Canadian federation." In creating the Senate, the court said the Fathers of Confederation deliberately chose an appointed chamber, which was supposed to be independent, free of partisanship and able to apply "sober second thought" to legislation without blocking the will of the elected House of Commons. Turning the Senate, directly or indirectly, into an elected chamber "would fundamentally modify the constitutional architecture ... and, by extension, would constitute an amendment to the Constitution," the court said. "They would weaken the Senate's role of sober second thought and would give it the democratic legitimacy to systematically block the House of Commons, contrary to its constitutional design." The federal government had argued that consultative elections wouldn't be binding and, since the prime minister would remain free to appoint whomever he pleases, the change was simply a housekeeping matter. While it acknowledged the prime minister could, in theory, ignore the results of senatorial elections, the court said: "The purpose of the (reform) is clear: to bring about a Senate with a popular mandate. We cannot assume that future prime ministers will defeat this purpose by ignoring the results of costly and hard-fought consultative elections." Similarly, the court said imposing a limit on the term of senators, who currently serve until age 75, would also fundamentally change the constitutional architecture, interfering with senators' independence. No matter how long the fixed term, a limit would "imply a finite time in office and necessarily offer a lesser degree of protection from the potential consequences of freely speaking one's mind on the legislative proposals of the House of Commons." The court noted that various constitutional amending procedures require Senate approval and any change to those amending formulas requires unanimous provincial consent. Hence, abolishing the Senate would change the amending formulas and, thus, must also require unanimous consent. "The process of constitutional amendment in a unicameral system would be qualitatively different from the current process. There would be one less player in the process, one less mechanism of review." The Harper government also asked the court if it could unilaterally repeal the constitutional requirement that a senator own at least $4,000 worth of property in the province he or she is appointed to represent. The justices found the federal government could do that for every province but Quebec. Since Quebec is the only province where senators are appointed to specific electoral districts, the province's consent is required to change the property qualification, the ruling said.

Is she on Cerb? Link?

It can happen, especially when you over exert yourself! (hint, hint). :; Case in point - True story: Many years ago, I booked a trip to Toronto for a week and just went all out seeing ladies. Then when I got back, I had a new GF waiting for me. Only problem was, I was so worn out from my trip that I couldn't cum with her. A bit embarrassing yes, but oh well!

Happy Birthday... have a good one!

Her last log in was over a year ago... I believe she and her friend Feisty Ferrari are no longer providing services, at least for the time being. Who knows? There's always the chance she may return. She was definitely one of my favorites!

While I can't speak for Eva, I have seen quite a few ladies from MGF in the past and have always been impressed with their level of service. I feel that since MGF is a reputable agency, any lady represented by them will meet or exceed your expectations.

We can only hope! *lol* Additional Comments: Hmmm...so, if the Conservatives are basically concerned with retaining as many votes from the public as possible, and popular opinion favours decriminalization, there may be a chance they'll shy away from the moral rhetoric of Joy Smith and enact something with no teeth in this regard.

This is why we need more articles written from the perspective of debunking Joy Smith's ideological claims. Hopefully the more the general public are educated on the true nature of this industry, the more opinion polls will sway in favour of decriminalization. That said, I agree completely with what your statement - if Harper perceives that this issue may hurt him come election time, he may elect to stay far far away from implementing anything concrete where new laws are concerned.

Geez, you got me... and here I was ready to run out and get a bank draft for Mod's bail - oh well, I'm sure the ladies will help me put that money to good use! ;)

I'm glad to see that others are taking issue with Joy's statements and writing about it publicly. As others have said, the general public (for the most part) are ill informed as to what this industry is really like. The more the public is educated, the more likely it becomes they will be able to discern the truth. Hopefully, that will be reflected in popular opinion of the nation, giving the Cons pause for thought...

I've seen her... she's awesome! :)