canuckhooker

Only have sex on days that have a "y" in their name.

As we used to say in the army, the only problem with wrestling with pigs is that you both get muddy and only the pig really enjoys it. And lest I get accused of calling you a pig, let me explain that what I said is called an analogy and is used here as a rhetorical device to explain the futility of trying to reason with you. I am in no way implying that you are porcine. However I do wish you would pick one side of an argument and stay on it. I had issues with ad hominem attacks, circumstantial ad hominem attacks, (look it up you might be surprised) and other logical fallacies in your friend's statements. The same faulty logic you are now applying. I was clear in my last post, judging the validity of someone's actions or trying to attribute their motives to some unproven fact is wrong. I said that and then you post a George Bush video accusing me of the informal fallacy of False dilemma aka "You are with us or you are against us". Again something I never said or implied. All I am asking for is reasoned debate based on provable facts, not supposition and biased attacks. Why would I say that? Well statements like " And for that matter, why should the government be free to implement any laws they want, even those which fly in the face of the SCC ruling? " Well there are two different ideas there, and false assumptions. Addressing the second assumption or statement first, "flying in the face of the SCC ruling" where is the proof of this? There is none, but the OP assumes that there will be a new law, and that it will contravene the SCC ruling. Well gee I wish I had his crystal ball. And yes, if he wants to say he has that feeling, then fine, we can all disagree. But for him to repeat it in every thread where he sees an opportunity is not helpful and really lowers the quality of the debate around here. The first question, "why should the government be free to implement any law they want?" . Well the answer is simple. It is called parliamentary democracy. That is how things work in this country. We hold elections, to choose our representatives, then they propose new laws, policies, and regulations. They study them, they debate them, they get passed in the house, the senate and, are given Royal Assent, then they become laws. If those laws contravene or conflict with any other law, or the constitution, or the charter etc, then we can challenge them in the courts. If we don't like what they have done, then we hold them accountable at the next election. You don't like that I am sure there are a lot of other places you can live without this unfair system of government. "Crimea anyone?" So again, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But they really need to be careful about making statements for which there is no proof, or which are contrary to fact. The fact that his argument is based on a personal bias against one political party and assumptions he has no basis in making shows how poorly he understand the complexity of the issue. Turning this into a rant against one political party merely devalues the case that many well-informed, well-intentioned people are making in this forum and other places. The fact that you choose to defend him not by debating my points or proving me wrong, but by personal attack is also wrong. I am not a totalitarian despot, nor am I George W. If you think that then you seriously misunderestimate me. (that last sentence is sarcasm, in case you need an explanation)

Oh my apologies. I didn't realize that outright lies, ad hominem attacks and repeated statement of faulty logic with no evidence qualifies as an opinion. So I can say that in my opinion people with green eyes are devious, untrustworthy liars because I think someone with green eyes is out to get me. By the logic you are defending, that is perfectly admissible. Sounds a little like 1930's Germany to me, but I only studied history I didn't live it. As for your point about having those outside the community listen to us, do you not think we will gain more favour with logic and reason and fact? If we tolerate this kind of fear-mongering, biased attacks and statements that are not factual, what does that say about us as a community? You are on a slippery slope with your logic, but it is not worth arguing. I will pop on my Jackboots, and goose step out of here looking for some poor innocents to persecute and execute. <exit stage left, whistling the Horst Wessel Lied>

I could not agree more with your sentiments, if in fact what was being stated was an opinion. But this poster in particular has made it his personal goal to blame this all on one political party with complete disregard of the facts or ignoring facts that differ from his point of view. In fact he is not stating opinion he is on the attack. And I for one find it offensive. Secondly if his arguments were reasoned and based on actual facts I would respect that, but most of what he is saying, and passing off as truth, is his own speculation, and even worse a raft of logical fallacies. (ad hominem, begging the question, appeal to fear) His hyperbole knows no bounds. Questions like: How can this government put in a place a law that would fly in the face of the SCC ruling? It assumes firstly that the nordic model is what they are going to do. (again, until we see the legislation nobody knows) He says, that is what Mackay intends to do but ignores the fact that there are public consultations going on right now. That they still need to get a law through committee and review etc etc. If Mackay has made up his mind and has a law ready to go then why waste the time and effort on consultation? Why risk it getting derailed? There are only really two answers to that, either they are going to listen to input from a variety of sources, or the exercise is a sham and they are lying about actually consulting. Nobody has proof either way. I can be cynical sometimes but I have a hard believing that this is a huge hoax and they are going to fudge the results. It also assumes that it is going to be the Nordic model unchanged so that it does violate the SCC ruling. And he assumes that a challenge will take years and years, absolutely ignoring the fact that the SCC ruling has set legal precedent which means the first charge can be successfully challenged in any court in the land. Finally it ignores the fact that if they want to come down hard, they can criminalize prostitution without violating the SCC ruling. Making everything illegal solves that problem. We wouldn't see it that way, but it would sure make the issue very clear. So yeah, if it was an opinion, I would respect it. But it is not. It is speculation and a biased political attack. It adds no new value to the argument other than to fear monger. He is rehashing the same thing over and over again in every thread he can find. If he had something insightful to say, something new, then I would be happy to listen and debate. But, it is the same biased political attack time after time.

There is one this week. Why don't you go and find out for yourself? Nothing ventured nothing gained. If you are a member at CMJ then I am sure you will enjoy the parties, and if you don't like it you can leave. No obligation on your part to do anything but come and socialize and enjoy yourself.

Will you please give it a rest. It is axiomatic, here at least, that what a politician says and what they do are two different things. You running around like Chicken Little imagining the worst, with absolutely no proof that it will happen is nothing but fear-mongering and wanting to hear your own voice. I will repeat, this is not a Conservative party issue. They would like it to go away. And the king-in-waiting, Justin, thinks the Nordic model is just Peachy. When a lot of the feminist groups who are also abolitionists start putting pressure on Ms May or Mr Mulcair, they too will not take sides. They will waffle with the best of them. So, my question to you is, in this forum, what do you think any of us have to gain with your consistent running around crying the sky is falling, crying wolf, Tory-bashing etc etc? Do you love the sound of your own voice that much that you want to inflict it on us all?"

The only way a petition is effective is if people use their real names. Allowing pseudonyms etc decreases the validity by allowing for shenanigans. So you can sign it using your handle from here, but expect that anyone who wants to attack the validity of the petition to point out that respondents didn't identify themselves.

Sorry gang, the name is offensive and should be reported to mod. This clown is most likely "troll" and by commenting on his name all you are doing is feeding the loathsome creature. He got his jollies reading your outrage. Next time, do yourself a favour and report him, but try and refrain from commenting. It will only attract more of his ilk, or even him to return using a different IP.

I know the Sun is not the most popluar newspaper around her, but Anthony Furey had a good Op-Ed piece on Saturday against the Nordic model. http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/03/01/the-future-of-prostitution-laws And the Sunday Editorial took the same line.

I agree with you. It is not a conspiracy, but actually an attempt to get some reasoned well informed opinions free from the current societal stigma of being seen as a sex worker or a client.

Hey guys, we get it, you don't like the Tories. I hate to burst your bubble but they are not the only one's pushing this model. Once again, horse is dead, quick flogging it. Running around crying the sky is falling, and starting new threads that add nothing new to the argument other than unreasoned, partisan, hyperbole is not going to help the issue.

Well you have been incredibly fortunate is all I can say. As recent as this weekend I was talking to the Bell Canada reps in lovely Mumbai. The are the most inflexible, unresponsive company out there, tied only with Rogers. I had a satellite TV account with them. They had to send me two bills, they couldn't put them on one. Then when I go to cancel, even though I had no special deal, they managed to convince me I had to pay for another month, before they could stop the service. So I say, bill me what I owe, I will pay it and be rid of it. What did they do? They overbilled me, so my account is inactive, but they keep sending me a statement that I have a $30 credit. No indication of how to claim it, get it back, whatever. Just that they owe me $30. I have DSL internet through a 3rd party provider that leases Bell's lines and bandwidth. A year or so back I had a lightning strike near the house that knocked out home phone service. My internet still worked but not the telephone. The Bell guy arrives, I tell him what was going on about both internet and landline. He says he fixes it and disappears. I try the land line, it works, go to get on the computer he has killed the DSL. Then it was several days of hell, talking to different people in India who swore up and down I didn't have internet on my line. I went up the chain of supervisors and never got to anyone in Canada, and nobody who would acknowledge what they did. I finally had to go through the billing department in Canada, and threaten legal action, before they finally agreed to send out a technicianm two days hence. He was there 5 mins and said, "Oooops sorry, I disconnected you from the DSL at the switch box when I fixed your phone line." Rather inconvenient as I work from home and do the majority of my business online. I lost 7 days of work because of their little ooops, that they never acknowledged. I am not sure who the bigger crooks are, big Telecom or the Banks, but regardless they will all be against the wall when the revolution comes. :P

I use Distributel, I inherited them after several companies bought up smaller ISP's including the one I originally used. Their tech support is pretty good, and very responsive. The downside is, that no matter who you use you are running on a bigger provider's infrastructure. I have DSL so my internet runs on my phone lines, and Bell has been responsible for some outages I experienced. It is unavoidable unfortunately.

I watched the season 2 premiere last night. It lives up to expectations, and certainly gives us a bit of an insight into the ways and attitudes of Northern Europeans in those times. I really like it.

My feeling is that this dead horse has been flogged enough. Everyone has a different opinion and no two people are going to agree. Every MA is different, every SP is different, every dancer is different. They are like sexy snowflakes. The all interact with their clients differently. They all have different limits. Rehashing this all again on a new thread is not going to solve anything. There is nothing new to say. There is just the opportunity for people to state their opinions again, and maybe rant a bit, or even rant a lot. If you want to know about GFE massage and whether or not it exists and what it is, well then look it up in the already established threads. Somedays I think these threads are started and fueled by someone living under a bridge.

Wrong, it will not have to go up to the SCC again. The first time someone is charged under anything that resembles the three parts struck down, Living off avails, Bawdy house (and all that entails including found-in provisions) and public soliciting their lawyer will trot out the SCC decision that says as long as selling sex is legal, these laws are not valid and the client can not be found guilty. Case dismissed. The government will have to take another approach.

Wow sounds like someone else found out about these two ladies. Looks like you had one hell of a Saturday.

What signs? It has been explained elsewhere on this board about the process of getting a bill passed and into law. Even if they were going with the Nordic model, and that is a big "if", it would take months if not a year for it to get through the house. It is not even been drafted yet, let alone ever started going through all the steps. As for your estimate of how long before it is challenged, I think you are way off on that one as well. If the Government tries to put a law in place that clearly ignores the supreme court ruling in regards to the specific portions of the Criminal code that were struck down, then I don't think anyone would be convicted. First the Nordic model does not outlaw selling of sexual services, so then that is still a legal job, even though nobody can buy. But the Nordic model also outlaws brothels, and living off the avails, which is in direct contravention of the SCC ruling. One of the key conditions of that ruling was that selling sex was still legal. That condition is met in the Nordic model, so putting back the same restrictions would not be accepted. Judges would not convict, and most smart prosecutors would not prosecute because they do not like having their rulings overturned. The SCC ruling is a legal precedent that most defense counsels would use, and challenges and appeals to that would not take as long even if there was a conviction. The court has examined all the evidence and ruled. They will not try and put this model in place, they know what the rulings meant. However, as we see, even from the Liberal policy convention, everybody is trying to avoid taking a position. They are going to analyze it, and seek input, it will get delayed procedurally, it will die on the order paper. They know they have two choices, either outright criminalization, or regulation. They talk about Nordic to keep the uneducated masses happy, but they know it will not work.

I am not so sure. I think it is a bit parnaoid to read intent into that question. It asks a question directly related to the "living off the avails" part of the Criminal Code that was struck down. Which is a valid question. What do you think of this is what they are asking. The follow up on exceptions, can be taken for both sides. If you answered yes, then should there be exceptions. e.g. drivers, security etc. If you answered no, should there be exceptions like "pimps". Now granted that is covered under other laws, but it is still a good way to confirm that coercion is not accepted. I don't know how else they could get a read on public opinion on that particular point without asking that question, and I can't think of too many other ways to word it that is not leading in one direction or the other.

Bad day to post that, La Ferme Rouge burned down on the weekend.

I know there was mention of this in the paper this morning. Unfortunately it was a negative comment from the pro-sexwork side. It was Chris Bruckert from UofO saying that the questions were leading or biased, particularly question #4. I can see her point sort of, but I don't think it is particularly bad. I don't see it leading anyone to thinking one way or the other. We just need to get everyone we know who is against abolition or criminalization to answer.

This is why this argument is getting futile. The democracy in Canada is based on what is called the "First past the post". So it is not an absolute majority, it is the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, and the party with the most seats is the governing party. It is not something new that Harper dreamed up. It is how this country has run for 147 years. The party with the most votes forms the government. Make no mistake the Tories got more than 50% of the popular vote in 3 of 13 provinces and territories. ( and more than 40% in 5 others including BC and Ontario) However, the only provinces where the Conservative party did not win the largest percentage of the votes were Quebec, Newfoundland and the NWT. The NDP came close in some provinces, but again, it was only one province that gave them that result... Quebec. And the result was so lopsided in that province that the rest of the results in the country were skewed. The fact is that Quebec has less than 25% of the population, and they voted overwhelmingly NDP, giving the party more than 60% of their seats and 20 % of the seats in the house. ( In Quebec the Tories had 16% of the popular vote and only got 6.6% of the seats) The only province that saw that kind of lopsided support for one party. ( in Newfoundland they got 28% of the popular vote and 14% of the seats.) Newfoundland gave the Liberals 37.9% of the vote, and they got 60% of the seats from that province. Is that fair, or democratic given your previous comments? The bottom line is that if you don't like this then press for a constitutional change, and I wish you good luck on that. This is how this country runs, and for good reason. You don't like the government, well sorry, but a lot of your fellow citizens have a different opinion. If you really don't like how our political system works then may I respectfully suggest emigration? You are going to find flaws in every political system. None are perfect. We don't pick our governments based on who we don't want. We pick them on who we want, and in the last general election more people endorsed the Conservative party then all the others. And that is not a political statement on my part, it is a description of the reality. If anyone doesn't like the reality then I suggest you get involved, you work for people of the same mindset, you advocate, you make your feelings known. If you want to sit behind the veil of anonymity and throw stones, then you are sure to fail. People who act get my respect; the others who do nothing but give us uninformed, whinging, earn my well-deserved contempt.

You kind of missed the point. It has nothing to do with whether or not is illegal in other jurisdictions and if that will end the problem. It has to do with making matters worse by only making one person liable for prosecution for participating in the same act.

OK everyone is trying to understand the nuances and details of a law that has not even been written yet, let alone passed in parliament. For all the anti-Tory ranting in here and the idea that they are pandering to their base, all that does is show a basic lack of understanding in politics in Canada. That Tory base is pretty solid, and will vote for them no matter what. This issue is not going to sway that vote. But to win an election they have to appeal to a large segment of the middle including those so-called Red Tories. The Nordic model is not going to win them many fans in that segment for a variety of reasons. It is why they are going to try and avoid getting into the debate. Right now they are saying things that the vocal abolitionists want to hear. And remember a large number of those radical feminists etc are not Tory voters, nor will they ever be. They might move far enough right to vote for the Liberals but most of them are left of that. Regardless, speculating on whether out-calls are going to be legal, or how a law will effect someone is premature. Lets keep lobbying for legalization. That is what will help now, not wondering if I won't be able to have an SP over to the house anymore.

Really, screaming in forums? Hello pot, this is the kettle..... You are right they didn't examine the Nordic Model. What they examined was certain provisions in current legislation and ruled they were unconstitutional and violated individuals charter rights. Those provisions were the bawdy house provision, the living off the avails and the solicitation. Two of those provisions are key to how the Nordic model is implemented, Bawdy house and living off the avails. The model doesn't work and is difficult to enforce without those provisions. So if a Nordic-like model is implemented with those provisions and selling of sex still legal, when someone is charged under them, the case would be tossed out of court. This is called legal precedent. It would be appealed rapidly because the courts really don't like to have to fight the same arguments over and over after they have made a ruling. The court sent a clear message to parliament to make real changes to the laws. So yeah, the government may try and pass a law like that, but it will have no teeth and they will be sent back to the drawing board after the first case is tossed. This is how our legal system works. They will have to implement a law that respects the supreme court decision, and criminalizing the purchaser does not satisfy that condition.