cyclo

I don't think the OP was referring to calluses. Calluses build up on the fretting fingers, the fingers used on the guitar neck, which is usually the left hand. (Unless you're Hendrix and play the guitar backwards.) The right hand is used to strum or pick the guitar strings. If a guitarist doesn't use a pick to strum or pick they will usually grow their finger nails longer. So it's really a suggestion to be careful with long finger nails on your right hand "when you decide to go exploring". Having been a guitar player in my younger days I had longer nails on my right hand and I certainly didn't want to hurt my partners. So I decided that since I was pretty good at fingering a guitar neck with my left hand I would use my left hand to finger other places as well ;-) Problem solved.

Escorting is a business. Businesses don't offer student rates because it's "a nice gesture". They offer them because there's profit in offering them, either in the short term or the long term. Most businesses that offer student discounts (fast food outlets, movie theatres etc) are able to serve multiple clients simultaneously and increase volume without any decrease in service quality or increase in overhead costs. Increasing their volume of sales more than offsets the price discount. Another common category of student discount is on products and services which are in demand by all students and there is competition by vendors for a larger share, and therefore profit, of the student market (computers and software). Finally discounts to recent graduates are also a form of student discount and are usually used to establish brand loyalty for products (cars) which will produce ongoing sales for decades into the future. I can't think of any way in which these marketing approaches to students will increase profit for an escort. If there was a business case for student discounts, I think "the world's oldest profession" would have figured it by now ;-)

[B]Many Canadians arenâ??t clear on the definition of sexual consent: survey[/B] ZOSIA BIELSKI The Globe and Mail Published Friday, May. 08 2015, 10:09 AM EDT Last updated Friday, May. 08 2015, 10:10 AM EDT More than one in 10 Canadians believe spouses and long-term partners donâ??t need to bother getting consent from each other before having sex, according to a troubling new survey from the Canadian Womenâ??s Foundation. Conducted last month, the online poll of 1,500 Canadians suggests many arenâ??t clear on the definition of sexual consent. In this country, consent is defined as both affirmative and ongoing during sexual activity, a point only a third recognized throughout the survey. â??The idea that you need ongoing consent when youâ??ve been together for 30 years â?? this is where some people have an information gap,â? says Anuradha Dugal, director of violence prevention at the foundation. â??Yes, even after 30 years, it has to be consensual.â? The survey showed that some Canadians view consent as less and less important the longer couples remain together. While 97 per cent of Canadians surveyed believe consent is required between people on a date or between new partners, 12 per cent didnâ??t think it was always needed between spouses. Some 11 per cent didnâ??t think it was a must between long-term partners. In counselling survivors of rape within marriage â?? a subject that remains greatly taboo â?? Dugal says there are cultural and generational factors at work, and also a false sense of marital entitlement. â??Iâ??ve spoken to women who described husbands who expected sex every day, who come back at lunch time and demand sex in the middle of the day. They think thatâ??s what wives should do. There are men who have used pressure tactics: if a woman says she doesnâ??t want to have sex, he turns off the heat or threatens their children.â? Dugal pointed to retrograde attitudes around â??wifely duty,â? saying, â??There may be a sense of, â??Why would I ask this person? Thatâ??s one of the reasons why Iâ??ve married them.â??â? For some couples, intimate familiarity may mean theyâ??ve started taking consent for granted, failing to check in or communicate their boundaries. Dugal underscored that consent is always required, regardless of the longevity of the union: â??Itâ??s a way of showing your care, concern and respect for another person.â? She argued that generational hangovers might be at play: In Canada, the law on marital rape only came into place in the 1980s. Before 1983, rape was only treated as an offence outside of marriage, meaning a husband could not be charged with raping his wife. â??There are generations of people for whom it actually wasnâ??t illegal to have sex with your married partner without consent,â? Dugal says. â??Now itâ??s very clear that it is illegal, but there might be a bit of catching up to do there.â? Some misreadings of consent are cultural: â??In some communities, the only abuse that is named as abuse is physical abuse. If heâ??s hitting her, sheâ??ll say something. But if heâ??s not hitting her, then itâ??s not abuse. There could be many other things happening, including sexual violence,â? Dugal says. â??Thereâ??s an education piece missing. When you come to Canada, this is something you have to be aware of.â? These false assumptions about spousal consent manifest painfully at rape crisis centres and womenâ??s shelters, with many married victims ashamed to say theyâ??ve been sexually assaulted by their husbands. â??Especially when theyâ??ve been together with someone for so long...the assumption is that you have a relationship and you should somehow have been able to negotiate that. Thereâ??s still victim blaming.â? Dugal stresses that cultural translation around consent is crucial, especially for spouses from countries of origin where there are still no marital rape laws. â??Consent is a conversation people are now having. People should be willing to learn.â? [url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/many-canadians-arent-clear-on-the-definition-of-sexual-consent-survey/article24327510/[/url]

Most cases of depression and/or anxiety have a biochemical basis that affects brain functioning. In other words your brain does not allow you to think and feel as you would normally. Worrying, brooding or being anxious about small or normal things in daily life is one symptom of depression and/or anxiety. You can't "just get over it" and move on. A healthy person would not necessarily become unreasonably upset about whether or not they're travelling business class. They may prefer business class, but if they can't afford it, it's not a big deal. On the other hand, a person who is already ill with depression and/or anxiety may obsess about travelling business class regardless of whether or not they've ever experienced business class before. The illness can lead to seemingly irrational thoughts and behaviours. When evaluating a person for depression/anxiety, a rating scale is used to determine the severity of the illness' symptoms on daily life. The ratings range from "no impact in daily life" to "debilitating impact on daily life". When the ordinary routines or challenges of daily life cause more severe symptoms, that indicates a more debilitating occurrence of depression and/or anxiety.

1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: Consensual commercial sexual services/activities between consenting adult service providers and clients should not be a criminal offence. Government has no legitimate role in criminalizing consenting adult sexual activity regardless of whether it is a commercial or non commercial transaction. Criminal law should focus on violence, threats of violence, extortion, withholding of passports/visas, illegal confinement and underage commercial sexual activity. Broadly these acts would fall under the headings of underage prostitution, human trafficking, pimping and assault. I do not support the Nordic model in which one partner (the client) in the service transaction is criminalized. While such laws have been passed elsewhere, I do not believe the Canadian constitution allows for such inequitable rights or criminal laws. I can't think of any other example in Canada where one person can be doing something legal while simultaneously another participant is deemed to be engaged in a criminal act. Any violent acts or threats etc by a client should be prosecuted just as they would be in the case of any two individuals where such harmful behaviour occurred. 2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: I do not think that consenting adults selling sexual services should be criminalized. I think everyone recognizes that sex work can never be successfully "abolished". It has and always will exist. Criminalizing homosexual sex and anal sex in the past for example was a misguided attempt to eliminate them. The desire for sex, intimacy, human contact and variety is too deep to stamp out these desires. These desires cannot always be met by accepted social convention. Sex workers (women, men and transgendered) fulfil a need and niche in the commercial market. The next question is will prohibition through criminalization of service providers make citizens in general safer and more specifically will it make sex workers safer? The Supreme Court acknowledged that providing sexual services has unique risks. The social stigma associated with providing sexual services creates a social climate which increases the risks to service providers. Criminalization only increases the stigma and the resulting risks. While much of the Supreme Court's reasoning was based upon the fact that adult prostitution is currently legal, criminalizing it will not eliminate sex work nor will it eliminate or even reduce the risks to sex workers. Criminalization will continue to keep sex work in the shadow. Sex workers who have the means and skills will continue to work using online marketing. Even nordic countries acknowledge they've made no dent in this market. Outside sex workers will be forced even further into the shadows, unsafe locations, be further alienated from law enforcement and have even less opportunity to screen clients. The Nordic model assumes that sex work is exploitation of women by men. Obviously the largest portion of the market for sexual services is male heterosexual clients and female sex workers. The Nordic model however fails to acknowledge the diversity of sex workers and their clients (male sex workers for males, women for women, women for male/female couples, men for male/female couples, transgender workers for males etc.) How can a law be adopted which supposedly targets the exploitation of women by men, yet simultaneously sweeps in many other citizens? Finally, I've met many sex workers and they do not fit the stereotype of exploited or downtrodden women. Many have university degrees, have other small businesses (accounting, design etc) and like many people have made conscious choices about how they want to make their income and how long they want to do this work. Some women, while very intelligent, have not been able to get jobs that pay living wages for a variety of reasons (education, no work experience and a mid life divorce etc.). While sex work was not their first choice of work, they are comfortable doing this work. They will continue do it if it is entirely criminalized (just as many aspects of their work are already criminalized). Will criminalization of their work in its entirety make their lives better? I recognize that some sex workers are in exploitive conditions. These people deserve protection under our criminal laws, just as any citizen does. Existing laws related to assault, extortion etc should be used for their protection and strengthened if necessary to achieve successful prosecution of exploitive pimps or clients. 3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain. Comment: The federal government does not need to be involved in specifying where sex work can or cannot occur. This is a zoning and licensing issue for Municipalities. Specifying where sex work can occur is certainly not an issue for criminal law. Municipalities currently have sufficient enabling powers to specify acceptable locations, exterior appearance, signage, concentration and separation distances form other sensitive uses etc. These decisions need to be unique for each community. No community should be given the power to ban any aspect of sex work if it remains legal and if the laws related to indoor sex work are liberalized. Public solicitation, usually on public streets remains problematic. It has social and legal issues similar to panhandling. Outdoor sex workers however should not be forced into unsafe locations which increase their potential risks. 4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: I'm answering this question, not on the basis of the assumptions implied by the phrase "prostitution of an adult", which suggests exploitation. My answer is for sex workers who are exercising free will and are making their own choices on how they want to work (independent or agency). Sex workers should be able to pay for accommodations, booking/phone services, personal assistants, marketing services, online services, legal advice, financial advice, drivers, security, clothing, sex toys, restaurants etc. Sex workers should also be able to hire agencies that manage many of these logistics on their behalf. Certainly anyone who is living with a sex worker (partner, children, friends, parents etc) should not be criminally penalized because they receive some financial benefit. Sex workers should be able to financially contribute their earnings to their families and friends just as any other wage earner in Canada can. Anyone who forces a sex worker to involuntarily "hand over" their earnings should be held criminally accountable for any for threats, extortion, intimidation, violence etc which have been used. 5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision? Comment: The Supreme Court's decision was very well reasoned, particularly in the face of an issue which has much social stigma attached to it. What stood out regarding their decision and written opinion was that it was based upon factual information and not morality. Any Federal response should also be based upon the factual information which we currently know about sex work and should avoid imposing morality upon citizens. There are many things which are considered immoral by a portion of the population (premarital sex, divorce, abortion, interethnic marriage, interfaith marriage, gay marriage, consumption of alcohol, cutting your hair, revealing clothing, working on the sabbath, using mechanical equipment etc. Canada is a secular society and should adopt laws which have a secular basis. What is a secular basis? Minimizing actual harm to our citizens and giving citizens autonomy to live their lives based upon values which may be unpopular or uncommon, provided they do not harm others. Many opponents of sex workers and their clients build straw man arguments. The sex work industry is characterized as being dominated by sex trafficking and exploitation of underage girls. These are certainly harmful behaviours, but there is no factual evidence or peer reviewed studies to support the view that these behaviours are representative of the industry. Fear mongering and decisions based upon fear mongering and inaccurate information will not result in sound law. Criminalizing clients or both clients and sex workers will only draw law enforcement attention away from harmful exploitation. Law enforcement will target easy arrests and never get to the hard undercover work required to crack down on the small proportion of trafficking and underage exploitation. The image of men and women involved in the sex work industry (as clients and providers) presented by abolitionists/prohibitionists is not representative of the majority of clients and workers in my experience. Most are ordinary people with diverse, common and ordinary backgrounds. While those participating in the sex industry will disagree with abolitionists/prohibitionists that sex work is inherently harmful, we all agree that we can find some common ground, which should be the basis for criminal law. Criminal law should continue to focus on exploitation through violence or coercion of adults and any exploitation of underage children or youth.

Like a lot of things in life, deciding where to travel involves understanding your risk tolerance. Here's a link to the Government of Canada Travel Advise and Advisories web page which is always worthwhile checking. http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/advisories You'll see that the advisories range from "Exercise normal security precautions"; warnings about travel in certain regions within a country; up to and including "Avoid all travel". Most of the countries in the world are pretty stable, have low crime rates and the rule of law applies. You just need to use your normal common sense, a bit of street smarts to avoid the hustles that often occur at major tourist sites and always listen to your sixth sense. Travel to any western European country is an easy first travel step. I've recently travelled to Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Croatia and the Czech Republic. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of those destinations for even the most risk averse traveller. I was planning a trip to Thailand, but I'm taking a wait and see attitude right now because of the political turmoil, demonstrations and violence in some areas of the country. The travel advisory is "exercise a high degree of caution" throughout the country along with a couple of regions where they advise "against all travel". Following the country in the news I understand that there's also a risk of further instability in the near future... While I'm there :-( A year ago the country was quite stable and I'm sure it will be again in the near future. It will always be there, so I can wait out the politics ;-) and go there some other time. Later this year I'll be trekking in Nepal. That has logistical challenges and potential medical risks due to the altitude so I'm booking with reputable local guides. My point is that each of these trips involves a different level of risk, based upon factual information, and a different response from me based upon my risk tolerance. The world may seem like a very big place, but we're actually in a very, very tiny corner of the universe. Might as well take the time to have a look around while we're here ;-) Good luck with your travels. I suspect once you get out there you'll be bitten by the travel bug and you'll become a more confident traveller.

I originally posted this just for a bit of fun, but there are a couple of deeper issues beneath this phenomena. You're right, that women outnumber men in China. It's believed the ratio is approximately 117 - 100. This appears to be due to female infanticide, selective abortion of female fetuses, and neglect of newborn females. In 1997 the World Health Organization's Regional Committee reported that "more than 50 million women were estimated to be 'missing' in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to one child." So, if there are more men than women, women should have no trouble finding partners. If that's the case, why are they hiring boyfriends? China's economy is growing exponentially and women are becoming more economically independent. Everywhere in the world, when women gain economic independence and/or have access to more education they delay marriage and having children. China is no different. In China, parents still cling to traditional beliefs that their daughters need to marry for economic security and because... "That's the way it's always been done." Parents worry about "losing face" if their daughters are "leftover" and not married by 25. In addition, in a one child society, these young women are the sole chance for grandchildren for many parents. At one time or another, most of us have been asked by our families "When are you going to find a nice woman/man and settle down?" Now imagine multiplying this pressure x 100. China is undergoing rapid urbanization and social change driven by its economic growth. Parents of course not only cling to older values in the countryside, they pressure their "leftover" daughters to comply with these traditional values. Apparently it's a lot easier to make parents happy with a pretend boyfriend than it is to challenge them or put up with their pressure every time you visit. After the visit you go back to the city and resume your independent life. Most of these women will eventually marry and have children, but they're just not following the traditional Chinese timetable for these events. Parents however don't think it's possible to delay these events, they think life will pass their daughters by.

With respect to this point, "the courts" can't provide confidential or "behind the scenes" advice on how to prepare the new legislation. If the government wants to get advice from the Supreme Court, they have to make a public referral to the Court asking for an opinion on certain questions or on a draft of the legislation. Presentations and questions would be asked in open court and then a written public ruling would be issued by the court.

[B]Porn Company Fined $78,000, Accused of Workplace Safety Violations[/B] Los Angeles Times By Abby Sewell January 31, 2014, 5:32 p.m. State regulators cited a Bay Area-based adult film company over workplace safety violations, assessing fines of more than $78,000. Cal-OSHA opened an investigation into San Francisco-based Kink Studios, which runs a network of sites, in August, in response to a complaint filed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The foundation's complaint related to a July 31 shoot involving actress Cameron Bay, who tested positive for HIV shortly thereafter, bringing filming in the adult industry briefly to a halt. The complaint said the production involved acts "considered high-risk for the transmission of HIV." Bay later said publicly that during the shoot, an actor got a cut on his penis but continued performing without a condom. The other performers involved in the shoot subsequently tested negative for HIV, and the adult industry has maintained that Bay -- and her then-boyfriend, adult film performer Rod Daily, who tested positive for HIV soon after Bay did -- contracted the virus in their personal lives. The OSHA citations issued Thursday named a range of violations, including improper use of extension cords, and failure to have on-site first aid materials approved by a physician. But the bulk of the fines -- $50,000 -- related to allegations that the company failed to protect workers from blood-borne pathogens. Kink.com officials said they would appeal the fines, which they called "excessive" and "politically motivated." The company said its performers are all told they have the right to use condoms on the set. â??The complaints which prompted the inspection were not made by actual employees, but by outside groups with a long history of opposition to adult film," Kink owner Peter Acworth said in a statement. Los Angeles County voters in 2012 passed an AIDS Healthcare Foundation-backed measure requiring condom use on all adult film shoots in the county, although the mandate is still tied up in court and is not being actively enforced. Attempts to pass statewide legislation have so far not succeeded. OSHA has proposed new regulations that would require not only condoms but, in some cases, eye protection and mouth barriers for porn workers. Advocates for a condom mandate say porn workers should be protected like those in any other high-risk industry. But adult industry groups say their current STD-testing protocols work and that a condom mandate would drive production underground or out of the state. [url]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-porn-studio-citations-20140131,0,4614083.story#axzz2sCExtL4R[/url]

"Little Stevie Wonder - The Eighth Wonder of the World" had his first hit record at 13 with "Fingertips (Pt. 2). It's impossible to say enough about Stevie Wonder... Ellen Page - Started working on the Pit Pony when she was 10 and the moved on to performances in Rock Candy, Juno, X-Men and Inception. So far so good on the personal front. Julie Andrews - Starred in UK theatre productions when she was 13 and then Mary Poppins, Sound of Music and Victor/Victoria. She's made it to 78 so I think it's safe to say she made the transition to successful adult ;-) Anna Paquin - Second youngest person to win an Academy Award at 11 for Best Supporting Actress in The Piano. She's also done Fly Away Home, Almost Famous, X-Men and True Blood. (Tatum O'Neil was the youngest Academy Award winner at 10 for Paper Moon, but unfortunately hers is a different story entirely.) Tony Williams - OK this pick is a little obscure, but I think it's amazing that he lived to be a clean and successful adult. Tony was the most influential drummer since the 1960's and began playing with major jazz artists when he was 13 and joined Miles Davis when he was 16. Considering he was around significant hard drugs and alcohol on a daily basis during his adolescence it's amazing that he never developed any addictions. Unfortunately he died at 52 following minor surgery. Scarlett Johanson - Started in film when she was 10 and major roles when she was 12. Other than the usual celebrity gossip about her love life, she seems to have made the transition OK.

Cowboy, we can all empathize with your situation. A good sex life is important for physical, mental and spiritual health. As others have mentioned taking advantage of EAP and talking to your doctor are important to do. Without ruling out an underlying medical condition, it sounds like you're trying to treat your symptoms which include low libido and lethargy rather than focusing on the cause, work volume and stress. I'm going to suggest two "career management" steps. 1) Speak to your manager/supervisor about your workload, your performance and his or her expectations. At this point you don't necessarily even need to talk about the impact your workload is having on your quality of life at home. Just focus on the work initially and your ability to get it all done. As you've mentioned, it's a new job. You've only been in it for four months and normally you wouldn't be expected to be fully proficient in the job yet, which includes how much work you can be expected to get done. It's common for new employees to try to be superman and create a good impression which exceeds the performance expectations for the job. This is especially true at your age when you're trying to move beyond just getting/keeping a job and instead you're trying to build a reputation as reliable, a subject expert etc. It's also common for managers not to be aware of the specific problems employees are having unless they/you speak up. You don't need to tell your manager "I want to start experiencing boners again...", It is however legitimate to talk about "I barely even have the time to get up and away from my desk just to go to the bathroom, focus on eating lunch without getting swamped with work, or even something so simple as making a photocopy of something I need to do the task at hand..." It's also important to discuss that you're "... at full throttle (and many times at over capacity)..." "but when more work deemed "urgent" gets piled on faster than I can shuffle it, it takes its toll." What are the job's priorities? When and how can you get your manager to establish your workload priorities when there's too much to do? Time management is a good skill, but ultimately there are circumstances in which it's impossible to "do everything", no matter how efficiently you use your time. That's when you need focus on "priority management". Priority management requires a consensus or agreement amongst several affected parties, in particular your manager, who "has your back" when not everything gets done or doesn't get done to your usual standards. As theliquor and nlwoodchuck pointed out, you need to get to the point where you have the confidence to say "No". When you have this conversation with your manager, it's important to provide specific examples of the difficulties you're having in dealing with both work volume and "urgent" priorities. 2) It sounds like you're pursuing jobs almost exclusively on the basis of salary and to avoid boredom. You need to change this pattern before you assume too much debt and annual expenses. Then it will be too difficult to make a career change that may initially involve a lower salary but is a better fit for you. You've seen what some of the consequences of the career strategy you're currently pursuing are. It will only become worse as you get older and face a potential mid life crisis or more serious health problems (heart disease, high blood pressure, depression, anxiety, substance abuse...). Every job has stress. Every one thrives or withers under different conditions... repetition and accuracy, following policies and procedures, creativity and blue sky thinking, creativity and applied problem solving, detailed analytics, big picture thinking, working closely with others, working in isolation, dealing with the public, back of house work, urgent work, long term research, flamboyant lead singer, humble bass player... You can reflect on which work situations you've thrived in professionally and personally. What work suits not just your skills but also your temperament? For example a person who is methodical and steady by nature... checking and rechecking their work is not suitable to a high volume environment. They'll never get it all done or be satisfied with the work they produce. A big picture/broad strokes person will die a thousand deaths working on repetitive work requiring detailed accuracy. You're HR department can help you with some personality analysis and career planning. You're manager may be able to identify a mentor for you to assist with some of the career/work challenges you're facing that aren't taught in school. I hope this helps. Good luck.

Well, not surprisingly, it looks like the opposition party leaders find sex work as politically distasteful as the conservatives. They don't seem to demonstrate any understanding of the issue beyond the tired cliches and don't seem to have much of substance to contribute to the public policy debate at this point. Justin Trudeau wary of proposal to regulate, tax prostitution CBC News Posted:Jan 17, 2014 9:15 AM ET Last Updated:Jan 17, 2014 10:21 AM ET Justin Trudeau is keeping a wary distance from a Liberal proposal to legalize, regulate and tax prostitution just like any other commercial enterprise. A resolution to legalize the sex trade is being pushed by the Liberal party's youth wing and is to be debated at the party's national policy convention next month in Montreal. But the Liberal leader, who has enthusiastically embraced a resolution passed at the last convention to legalize marijuana, signalled Thursday that he doesn't favour taking the same approach to prostitution. He played down the importance of the resolution and indicated that he views prostitution as a more complicated issue than pot. "The priority of the Liberal party ... around our policy convention in February in Montreal is on economic success for the middle class. That is the centre of our focus," he said during a campaign stop with a provincial Liberal byelection candidate in Thornhill, Ont. He noted that the prostitution resolution is just one of many to be debated at the convention and said he looks forward to hearing what Liberals have to say on the subject. The debate is timely given that the Supreme Court has thrust the prostitution issue back onto the federal political agenda. The top court last month struck down the country's prostitution laws as unconstitutional and gave Parliament a year in which to come up with a new legal regime to govern the sex trade. The court ruled that the current prohibitions on brothels, street solicitation and living off the avails of prostitution create life-threatening conditions for prostitutes, violating their right to life, liberty and security of the person. "For now, I'm just very, very mindful that the Supreme Court came down very clearly that the current approach is not protecting extremely vulnerable women and sex workers and we need to make sure that we are finding a way to keep vulnerable Canadians protected from violence that surrounds prostitution but also is intrinsic to prostitution," Trudeau said. In French, Trudeau went further, saying it's important to recognize that "prostitution itself is a form of violence against women." He called for a "responsible, informed debate" on the issue. Trudeau also said Liberals are "certainly going to look at" the so-called Nordic model, which penalizes those who purchase sex, not those who sell it. Conservatives have used the mere existence of the resolution to attack Trudeau for wanting to legalize both pot and prostitution. Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino, a former Ontario police chief, waded into the fray Thursday. "Justin Trudeau's Liberals have been clear: making prostitution and illegal drugs more accessible to Canadians are their priorities," Fantino said in a written statement. "Under the leadership of Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper, our government is focused on protecting our communities from the effects of illegal drugs and vulnerable women from the harmful effects of legalized prostitution." NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, attending a caucus strategy session in Ottawa, did not directly respond when asked if he'd consider legalizing prostitution. He said the issue is complex and needs to be studied by a parliamentary committee, hearing from police, health experts, community groups and sex trade workers. Mulcair chastised Harper for failing to immediately launch such a study following the Supreme Court ruling. http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.2500357

I agree that the Nordic model is an unreasonable solution and that it would likely fail another Charter test. I also agree with Nikki's original post that in general there are sufficient existing criminal laws to deal with underage, extortion and trafficking. Some of them could be strengthened. If new laws are passed to completely criminalize prostitution (both selling and buying) that doesn't mean that they can't be challenged. There is a possibility that the new law could be successfully challenged under the Constitution. There is some limited precedent for the Supreme Court to "decriminalize" a criminal act. For example, the Supreme Court decided that the criminalization of abortion was unconstitutional. They also decided that the criminalization of safe drug injection sites was unconstitutional. In both cases the Court ruled that those laws violated the security of the person provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section of the Constitution. Security of the person is also at the heart of the Supreme Court's recent prostitution decision. Regardless of whether prostitution is fully or partially criminalized under any new laws, an interested party might mount a Constitutional challenge to test whether the new law has a reasonable or unreasonable impact upon security of the person. The Supreme Court will continue to ask questions such as "What public good is being achieved? Does the law place persons at an unreasonable and disproportionate risk of harm?" Having said all that, it's also not that simple. There's an important difference between abortion and safe drug injection sites when compared to prostitution. The abortion and safe injection site decisions both dealt with medical procedures. The criminalization of patients and doctors who were seeking and providing medical treatments respectively is quite different from the criminalization of clients and sex workers involved in prostitution.

Hi Canuck. I agree with you that Ontario municipality's can limit the number of adult entertainment establishments and also that they can't prohibit them. In my last post I was just trying to make a point about where and how that authority comes from the Province and how it can be used by the municipality. It's a subtle difference between limiting the number throughout the entire municipality and limiting the number "in any defined area in which they are permitted." While I was writing my last post, I wasn't sure whether I was making my point clearly or if it was even a worthwhile point to make. I think the answer to both questions is in... And the answer to both is "no" lol Have a good evening and thanks for your fair minded and even tempered replies.

[B]Why Harper wonâ??t override prostitution ruling[/B] [I]Chantal Hébert[/I] As leader of the opposition, Stephen Harper was initially reluctant to rule out using the so-called notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to keep same-sex marriage off the books. Throughout the 2004 federal campaign, he declined to say whether he as prime minister would ask Parliament to override the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marriage equality. When he relented in 2005, Harper did not so much renounce the option as argue â?? in the face of a mountain of contrary legal evidence â?? that he could restrict access to marriage to heterosexual couples without using the notwithstanding clause to shelter his law from the courts. Once he became PM, the stars did not align in such a way as to test his contention. In a free vote in the minority House of Commons, parliamentary support for same-sex marriage was reaffirmed and the issue became moot. Fast forward to 2014 and the prostitution debate that has just landed in the lap of Parliament, courtesy of the Supreme Court. Last month, it unanimously struck down the countryâ??s anti-prostitution laws after finding that their impact on the life and safety of vulnerable women was disproportionate to the public policy objective of controlling the sex trade. Parliament has a year to come up with a more Charter-friendly regimen or accept a legislative vacuum. To say that the government is unhappy with this development is an understatement. In its immediate aftermath, Social Development Minister Jason Kenney all but cast the ruling as an unwelcome act of judicial activism. â??I think that in our system of government there is an understandable primacy of Parliament as the democratic deliberative process and that my own view is that the judiciary should be restrained at the exercise of judicial power in overturning a democratic consensus ...â? he opined. But the influential minister stopped short of pointing out the obvious: i.e. that his government has at its disposal all the restraining tools that it needs. With the Conservatives in control of both houses of Parliament, only a lack of political will stands in the way of maintaining the anti-prostitution status quo via the notwithstanding clause. There was a time not a decade ago when the ruling party would have seen the prostitution ruling as an opportunity to pull the clause out of its long-standing state of federal disuse. It was put in the Constitution for the express purpose of allowing legislators to have the last word on the courts on most Charter issues, and more than a few experts believe that the refusal of past federal governments to even consider it as a legitimate option has contributed to the emasculation of Parliament. But in spite of its natural ideological instincts and a public opinion potentially receptive to overriding the charter on prostitution, two words sum up why Harperâ??s government will still be disinclined to do so: abortion and Quebec. Little could reinforce suspicions that a future Conservative government could limit or repeal abortion rights than the sight of Harper becoming the first ever prime minister to use the notwithstanding clause to override a fundamental right as established by the Supreme Court. (As an aside, the same reasoning at least partly accounts for the Conservatives taking a pass on previous opportunities to use the clause.) And then there is the Parti Québécoisâ?? controversial secularism charter. Wearing his hat of multiculturalism minister, it was Kenney who suggested last fall that if the charter ever became law, Ottawa would explore whether it should take the lead in challenging it in the Supreme Court. Some of the ethnic and cultural communities he has assiduously courted on behalf of his party would expect no less. But if the courts were to strike down the Quebec secularism charter on the watch of a majority PQ government, it would, by all indications, have no qualms about using the notwithstanding clause to keep it in place. And at that juncture, Harper, Kenney and others â?? should they override the prostitution ruling â?? would find themselves casting stones at Quebec on behalf of the provinceâ??s religious minorities from a glass house of their own making. [I]Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer for the Toronto Star.[/I]

In Ontario, the Ontario Municipal Act is the legislation which enables municipalities to license Adult Entertainment establishment. It states: Restrictions re adult entertainment establishments 154. (1) ... a local municipality, in a by-law... with respect to adult entertainment establishments, may, (a) ... define the area of the municipality in which adult entertainment establishments may or may not operate and limit the number of adult entertainment establishments in any defined area in which they are permitted The legislation doesn't indicate that a municipality can limit the number of licenses throughout the entire municipality to either one or two. The legislation in effect allows municipalities to regulate the "concentration or density" of adult entertainment businesses in a "defined area". This allows municipalities to prevent adult entertainment businesses from congregating together in an area. The fear is that if you get too many adult entertainment uses close together in an area, that they will alter the area's commercial character and a red light or quasi red light district will be established. It's quite possible that politicians and the media have understood the legislation allows a municipality to place a total limit on the number of adult entertainment establishments throughout the entire municipality. It's also possible that in small municipalities this could occur simply because of the fact that they only have one or two small commercial or industrial areas and those are the "defined area" in which adult entertainment establishments are allowed. Aside from the specifics of this discussion, the point I'm really trying to make is that "others" (politicians, media, abolitionists, police, religions etc) have consistently defined the discussion/debate about sex work. One of the ways they do this is by establishing their interpretation of various laws/legislation as the dominant view. Nobody questions it or goes back to check the facts or read the original legislation/laws. We should question the accuracy of anything we've accepted to date as correct. Even though most of us are not going to "out" ourselves to others, it allows us to speak more knowledgeably with informed views when these topics come up for discussion with friends or at work. After the recent Supreme Court decision I think more "average" people are interested in hearing informed opinions.

Municipalities can regulate "categories or types" of businesses but they can't regulate the "number" of businesses in any category. They can regulate where a business locates through zoning and they can regulate some operational issues through licenses. Municipalities don't have the authority to regulate commercial competition by limiting the number of businesses. They certainly don't have the authority to grant a monopoly by eliminating all competition and specifically allowing only one business to operate in a category. The establishment of Adult Entertainment uses (strip clubs, massage parlours etc) is often controversial. Even in this category of use I'm not aware of any legislation which allows a municipality to only allow one business. The criteria for locating an Adult Entertainment business can make it difficult to find an acceptable site, but not impossible. If you meet the criteria, you get your permit/license. If municipal staff or council refuse the permit/license every province has an appeal board that can overturn the municipality's decision. If you can identify the authority to only allow one strip club for example in a municipality, I'd be interested in reading it. Here's a short article in the Ottawa Sun which provides an example of the locational criteria for an Adult Entertainment use in Ottawa. I'm sure there's more to it than what the newspaper identifies. http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/12/20/brothel-ruling-might-mean-new-city-of-ottawa-zoning

I posted this comment in a similar thread previously, but I've added some comments based upon the recent Supreme Court's recent review of prostitution laws which have some relevance to this question. An sp can legally refuse to engage in sexual activity with anyone they choose, regardless of the reasons. There are very, very good reasons for this. The question of whether an sp can legally refuse to see clients of a specific ethnicity also applies to whether they can legally refuse to see clients of certain cultures, nationalities, religion, age, gender, size, hygiene, manners, ability to follow instructions, reputation, previous contact... Every reason that's ever been discussed on CERB. You name it! They are legally justified. The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits the "denial of service" based upon "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability...". Therefore if you only look at the Canadian Human Rights Act, you might think an sp cannot refuse to provide service to a client based upon race. However it's not that simple. Regardless of what the Canadian Human Rights Act says, neither the state nor a client can compel an sp (or anyone for that matter) to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with. Why? Because compelling/forcing someone to engage in sexual activity conflicts with the sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. When there's a conflict between the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code of Canada, the Criminal Code takes precedence. The Criminal Code protects the person who does not "consent" or want to engage in sexual activity, regardless of what their reasons are for not consenting. Even if their reasons for not consenting conflict with the Canadian Human Rights Act, they are protected by the Criminal Code. Society's goal of protecting people from prejudice is obviously very commendable. However, the harm caused by legally forcing someone to have sex against their will is greater than the harm caused to the prospective client by denying sex to them based on race or ethnicity etc. The Criminal Code of Canada provisions for sexual assault require that "consent" be given when engaging in sexual activity. Sexual activity without "consent", regardless of why consent is withheld, is sexual assault. The Criminal Code also states that "Consent" "requires the voluntary agreement... to engage in the sexual activity in question." If an sp felt legally "obliged", "compelled" or "forced" to engage in sexual activity with someone because of the Canadian Human Rights Act they would be engaging in sexual activity under "duress". In other words, there would be no "voluntary agreement... to engage in the sexual activity." This is the very definition of sexual assault. This is also a good example of why "No means no." Not, "No means no... but only if you have a good reason." There's a fundamental principle at work here. Neither the state nor another individual can compel us to do something with our bodies that we do not want to do, regardless of whether our reasons are reasonable or unreasonable. This is a very good thing! In addition, as the Supreme Court pointed out in its recent prostitution decision, laws which are designed to achieve a social good (for example the Human Rights Act) cannot be justified if they cause unreasonable harm to individuals. In this discussion, that would be a sex worker's right to decide what they do with their body and their right to freely give or refuse sexual consent and not feel obliged by law to engage in any sexual activity. As we are all aware, sex work should be a mutually consensual service. It is not the sale/purchase of a body for use by the client as they desire. (Which is how many opponents of consensual sex work would describe it). While the Supreme Court's decision focused on the prostitution laws which it was hearing arguments about, they had a lot to say about the safety and security of sex work and sex workers in general. Those comments can be read into the application of other laws as precedent.

Nikki, thanks for the comments you've added to this thread. It's been very valuable to hear from someone who has been closer to the case than any of us have been. The issue you've raised of defining "prostitution", "sex" or "sexual services" in any new prostitution laws is an interesting one. While some of these words are used in the Criminal Code's prostitution laws, it's worth noting that none of these terms are actually defined in the Criminal Code. The legal understanding of these terms is based upon the "common law" precedents which have developed in previous cases. Much of our law is in fact common law and it doesn't have a lesser status than "written" laws. The courts, including the Supreme Court, haven't expressed any difficulty in understanding or applying these terms as legal concepts when hearing prostitution cases dealing with bawdy houses, public solicitation, living off the avails or procuring etc. They shouldn't have any difficulty in any future legislation either, regardless of how prostitution is regulated. In fact there's a good argument to be made that they shouldn't try to write a definition of things that are already understood and have useful meaning in common law. You can cause more harm than good. While our prostitution laws are broke, it's not due to a lack of definitions. As the Supreme Court stated in a previous case the problem has been "(the) bizarre, situation where almost everything related to prostitution has been regulated by the criminal law except the transaction itself." Added to that is the recent decision which shows how these laws cause serious harm to individual citizens while only achieving minor good for society in general.

Nikki has made several good points in her post. I just want to add some information with respect to swingers clubs and strip clubs. In 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that swingers clubs were not involved in prostitution. It was determined they were not "common bawdy houses" because there there was no "purchase of sexual services" (prostitution) taking place in them. Members were engaged in consensual sex and they weren't paying each other for sexual services. In the case of commercial swingers clubs, since there wasn't any prostitution occurring the club owners were not "living off the avails" of prostitution. It was also determined that since the clubs were private, regardless of whether they were in a home or commercial club, they weren't violating public indecency/nudity laws either. In the case of strip clubs, the courts have dealt with them under the indecency/nudity laws rather than prostitution laws. They provide erotic services, but not sexual services. (Provided of course that dancers are not illegally providing hand jobs or blow jobs etc in the champagne rooms, in which case they'd be providing sexual services; they and their customers would be engaging in prostitution; and the clubs would be bawdy houses/brothels.) Generally the move to contact dances for example has been upheld by the courts as not violating indecency laws and they have determined that there is no public harm which would cause them to be outlawed. In addition strip clubs aren't being charged with prostitution. (There is one case in Quebec, but it appears to be an anomaly and it wasn't taken to the Supreme Court.) There would have to be a very serious rewriting of the laws to catch swinger's clubs and strip clubs up in any new prostitution laws. Having said that, I'm sure strip clubs are now looking at the business opportunity to expand into sexual services by providing on site brothels and escort services. In many European countries for example, strip club and brothel services are offered under one roof. In this type of environment it becomes more difficult for dancers to find work if they only want to provide dances and not sexual services also.

Hi Miss Jane. You raise several good points which I'm sure will be argued before the courts in the initial stages of any challenge/defence of Nordic style legislation. I'll provide a few alternative points, not to dismiss yours, but to illustrate some alternative arguments which they'll also likely hear. The courts certainly won't let just anyone proceed with a legal challenge. They want to weed out those who are unprepared and/or will make frivolous arguments. The courts take a more relaxed view when granting standing if there's a "systemic issue" which is being addressed. That's been the basis of some of the legal arguments and decision in the recent prostitution case. If there's a systemic issue being considered, the facts of a specific case/appeal are not essential for the courts. Groups/individuals may be given Public Interest standing if they show a willingness and ability to mount a solid case, especially if it seems that a private interest party (in this case clients) is unlikely to come forward to launch a challenge. Another question they'll ask is "Do the parties mounting the challenge have a real stake in the issue?" In this case arguments will be made that despite the fact that clients are targeted by the law, there is a disproportionate negative impact upon sex workers. It's also true that the courts prefer to hear challenges based upon the facts of a specific case and don't like to hear legal arguments in the abstract. They will however make exceptions if there's no adequate case currently proceeding through the legal system and there is unlikely to be one in the future. It's also possible that they may accept relevant research done on the impact of similar laws in other jurisdictions. Another criteria they'll consider is whether the challenge is a good use of their limited time and resources. For example, "Is it an important issue to society or is it an important issue because of the degree of impact upon an individual's liberty or safety etc?" In their recent decision, the Supreme Court certainly articulated the significant issues and impacts which they saw resulting from the current laws. How this reasoning will be applied to any new laws is uncertain. It's correct that in the recent case, Bedford et al were granted Private Interest standing. This doesn't necessarily mean that they were ineligible for Public Interest standing in this case, or a future case. Once they were granted Private Interest standing, it was unnecessary to examine whether they were eligible for Public Interest standing. They had standing and the challenge proceeded form there. All of these points which Miss Jane and I have raised can seem pretty obscure and irrelevant to people's real lives, but they are representative of arguments which will be considered by the courts before they even get to the meat of the issue.

In light of the Supreme Court's reasoning, I don't think the Nordic Model is an option for Canada any more. It may be a political option, and many groups are advocating for it. In addition it superficially seems like a reasonable compromise to many people who don't know anything about the business. It is also appealing to people who just want to just "pull a solution off the shelf" and apply it without any thought. However, I don't think it will pass the standards which the Supreme Court has set. If the Nordic Model is used as the basis for new prostitution laws in Canada, the Supreme Court will likely strike them down too. The underlying reasoning running through the Supreme Court's decision for throwing out the current prostitution laws is twofold. First, prostitution is legal and secondly, the current prostitution laws put sex workers at unreasonable risk of harm, especially street prostitutes. Under the Nordic Model it is still legal to sell sexual services and sex workers would still be exposed to all of the same unreasonable risks as the current prostitution laws, especially those working in street prostitution. If it becomes illegal to buy sexual services, it follows that sex workers can't have safe locations to provide the services such as brothels because clients can't go there. In addition it also follows that communication/screening, especially for street prostitutes, will have to be quick and cursory, (just as it is now) because their clients will be at risk of being charged. That continues to put sex worker's safety at risk. Adopting the Nordic model just puts us back where we are now. It has the same flaws that at least two of the current prostitution laws (prohibiting brothels and public solicitation/communication) have.

That's correct. In fact this has been the case for the last several years since the lower courts ruled that the laws were unconstitutional. The Ontario decision for example was also "stayed" for a period of time to allow for an appeal to the Supreme Court. As in recent years, the Crown will only pursue prostitution cases which have not been affected by this decision (e.g. underage); there is real harm (e.g. physical abuse by pimps, human trafficking). The other category of enforcement which will continue will to be in response to complaints from neighbours... so continue to be discrete.

Originally Posted by Phaedrus But this question presumes that there needs to be a reason for it, or for anything. The universe doesn't need to exist for a reason. It just exists. In a sense I agree with your comment Miss TJ. Most of us look for "meaning", "purpose" and "reasons". If you look at the history of science, initially it focused on the "meaning or purpose of life" and was very wrapped up in religious beliefs. "Science" as a body of knowledge and a methodology for describing the physical world was in its infancy and didn't look like it does now. As it became clear that religious beliefs on the order and functioning of the cosmos were inconsistent with physical observations (think Copernicus and Galileo), scientific investigation became less restricted by religious beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life. Scientific thought became aligned with more secular philosophical thoughts. Of course, eventually, many abstract philosophical ideas, were shown to have an incorrect understanding of the physical world. These days, science no longer concerns itself with metaphysical questions such as... the meaning of life... why the universe exists... what is its/our purpose. Those questions have been left for religion and philosophy. Scientific research and the body of knowledge we call "science" now focuses on "how" the physical world works, not why it works that way. For example evolution and relativity are successful theories describing how aspects of biology and physics work. Neither one however attempts to explain why the speed of light is constant or why we have DNA. So while science may have its origins in seeking the reason or purpose of life/nature, that's no longer the case. If you ask most scientists to describe their work, they also wouldn't say they are answering questions of meaning or the purpose of existence. On the other hand, if you ask them if they have any religious or philosophical beliefs, most would say they do. Just like everyone else, they also seek meaning and purpose, they just realize it won't be found in a lab or in the field.

Intelligent Design claims to be a scientific theory rather than a philosophy. That means that Intelligent Design claims should be able to be tested with experiments and the results of these experiments should be able to be reproduced by others, but... The supporters of Intelligent Design have not had their work peer reviewed, they haven't published their data and they haven't been published in any scientific journals. Since Intelligent Design can't produce any physical evidence, it's a philosophy, not a science. There's nothing wrong with holding various philosophical beliefs. Philosophical views can be enjoyably discussed and debated, but you won't be able to prove or disprove anything about the physical world. Human evolution is certainly amazing. I understand why it seems like an overwhelmingly amazing series of lucky breaks. In part that's because we tend to overlook all the evolutionary "failures", the "dead ends". Physical evidence indicates natural selection has weeded out approximately 20 failed hominid species over the last 6M years. So in addition to a lot of things going "right" in the evolution of Homo Sapiens, a lot of things also went wrong for other hominid species. The same applies to thousands upon thousands of other species. Why would an Intelligent Designer produce so many failures? That's just a rhetorical question ;-) A robust theory of nature should be able to describe the conditions that have lead to species success as well as species failure. Evolution and Natural Selection provide that, Intelligent Design doesn't. I realize that Intelligent Design also attempts to explain other natural phenomena (origin and physical laws of the universe for example) but evolution is the most common battle ground so I've limited my comments to that.