canuckhooker

Again I will respectfully disagree. Your own quote contradicts your assertion. The act allows the municipality to define the area and LIMIT THE NUMBER. I haven't got the time nor the inclination to go back over 10 years to find the court cases that interpreted that, and laid out the principle that by-laws could regulate, but not outright prohibit. I did find the reference from a case in Hamilton, where the upper limit was set at two licenses for the municipality and the number was not to exceed that. It is City of Hamilton bylaw 07-170 if you wish to look it up. You can then search and see several cases where that was challenged. The appellant in one case did get a license in addition to the two allowed, but that was not because the city didn't have the right to limit the number. The appeal was allowed because the city didn't follow its own guidelines and procedures and revoked a license in a manner that adversely and unfairly treated the person who was issued the license. This limit on the number was not as the result of something stated in the legislation, it was as a result of appeals of city by-laws and the concept that they can regulate and limit, but not prohibit.

The municipalities do have the right to limit the number of licenses. When the whole strip club licensing issue arose in Ontario a lot of cities thought they could get rid of all SC's by not issuing licenses, and not grandfathering existing establishments. This was challenged in court and cities were told they could not outright "ban" the businesses, but they could limit the number of licenses. They had to allow at least one. So most cities allowed only one if there were not already clubs grandfathered. All the current licenses in Ottawa for example are for establishments that existed before these regulations came in, or were in other municipalities before amalgamation. If you went to city hall right now and tried to get another Adult entertainment license they would not issue you one, even if you met all the ridiculous criteria they put in place. I will try and find where this came from, but it goes back 10-15 years at least, so it may be hard to find. But my memory is pretty good on this issue and I think others will remember it as well. (Edit, I found reference in a Hamilton Ontario paper that I am wrong, the lower limit that is in Ontario Legislation is two, not one as I said. Therefore they have to allow up to two SC's as long as they conform to other zoning guidelines.)

If you don't want to go to Quebec for contact then going the other way, all the clubs in Ottawa are contact, so is the one in Casselman, and Cornwall. I believe there is one in Brockville as well, but don't know the details.

I am not in Toronto but have done a little hobbying there in the last couple of months. First, I don't want to argue with what Fortuneateone said or break board rules, but from what I have been told, there is a quite a bit of competition in the whole scene in TO, particularly between SC's, MA's and SP's. I would say that any informed and aware hobbiest in Toronto would carry condoms with them, and they may be surprised when and where they can be put to use. I have that information from a provider, and also from some first hand knowledge, so I know it is true. I would suggest that if you are not looking for an SP, but possibly an MP experience then there are a bunch to choose from that are like nothing I have seen. The relatively new Perla spa in the Northeast part of the city is the best appointed spa I have ever been in. The women are incredibly hot and everyone is welcoming and friendly. The service is second to none, and well worse a look-see.

Any of them. Just specify that is what you want. I am sure they will be happy to oblige.

This is probably not the best place to bring it up, but it is germane to the discussion. You are right they cannot prohibit the activity, hence why a city cannot ban strip clubs. They have to allow at least one. But that is all they have to allow. So in the city of Ottawa, for example, there are several licensed strip clubs, but they are grandfathered from before the regulations came into effect. If you applied for a license today they would turn you down, no questions asked. So even if brothels become legal, you could see cities allowing only one, and then regulating them heavily.

Actually the city of Ottawa Body rub license does not prohibit "happy endings", at least the one I read online. It does specify that the attendant must stay clothed at all timesand a few other things concerning hygiene, but it has no specific wording on what can and cannot be "rubbed". I looked at other jurisdictions in Ontario like Mississauga and Pickering, and their regs have specific prohibitions on massaging, buttocks, genitals and breasts, no digits, no oral, no ejaculation. Those words are not on the Body Rub regulations posted on the city of Ottawa website.

I am not sure where you got your information, but every municipality has different regulations and by-laws. That is the law of the land. Those by-laws effect the provider, not the customer. Given your posting history I am not sure where this query is coming from, nor the motivation.

Sorry to burst bubbles, but 25% is too low. I would say about 50%. I agree many dancers keep that side of the business and their affairs quiet, but many would or have escorted. And although I won't say at what clubs, and I realize that talking about extras in SC's is frowned upon in here, I will say generally from what I have seen and heard from those in the industry, there are a lot of extras going on in the champagne rooms around town that basically are the same services offered by escorts. That is Ottawa. I am not personally familiar with the scene in TO but have been told by a sex-worker there that it is more rampant and has really started a bit of a price war with MA's and SP's. MA's are giving more "extras" so as not to lose clients to the SC's. Now I will say that I don't have first hand knowledge of that, but did get it from someone who's judgement and knowledge I trust.

As I have said in other places, if they follow the Nordic model the charter will not come into it at all. All that was won on Friday will become moot. If they follow the Nordic model, then essentially the sale and purchase of sexual services will become illegal, and therefore safety of sex workers is not of concern to the courts. You don't see the court worrying about the safety of cat burglars, or armed robbers or embezzlers, because those are illegal activities. Under the Nordic model, although they only criminalize the "john" the act itself is illegal. If they go this route the charter will be of no help whatsoever.

There seems to be a lot of people missing the point. Yes, the Supreme court invalidated three parts of the Criminal Code dealing with Prostitution. So in one year, all things remaining equal, living off the avails, communicating for the purpose, and the bawdy house laws will no longer be valid. In practice I think you will be hard pressed to find any charges being laid under those three sections in the next year. But.... (and it is a big but), that is only if our current laws stay the same. Right now prostitution is legal in this country, and the ruling was made because those three laws were inconsistent with that fact and endangered people pursuing a legal means of work. If the Nordic model, or any other model comes in to effect, that makes exchanging money for sex illegal then all that hard work becomes moot. Brothels won't be legal, because selling sex will be illegal. All this will have been for nought. And stop blaming it all on Harper. He is only one part of this equation, and quite frankly I think he would rather avoid the debate. It is a politicial minefield. Start looking at the ridiculous and completely outrageous statements being made by people like the Elizabeth Fry Society, The Coalition for Abolition of Prostitution etc. etc. They are going to get the press, they are going to be exploiting others to get their point across. And it is not all right wing, nor left wing. It is just not church groups etc. It is a broad spectrum of people who want to criminalize prostitution, and they have a lot of tools to make their point. Target the right people, stop donating or working with groups that support criminalization. Speak out, and challenge the nonsense that we are already hearing, and are only going to hear more of in the coming months. Don't give the media ammunition. Yeah a hard fought battle was won on Friday, but it is going to be a long and bloody war.

Fuck the twister, the God-damned flying monkeys still scare the crap out of me.

Well we got what most hoped for, but I am not sure anyone can say what it will mean. There is a purported Chinese curse that says, "May you live in interesting times." Regardless of the debatable origin of the phrase, it rings true and we we are about to enter a period of interesting times. The example of 'what Harper and his cronies will do" is not something that concerns me. Their position is that prostitution is wrong and immoral, anti-Christian if that suits. But Harper has clearly shown that his personal beliefs are not something that he will force into law in a direct means. Despite the fact that he is anti-abortion, he gives folks in his caucus a smack-down if they bring the issue up. Most of the rabble-rousing in this area comes from the back-benches where as Prime Minister, but more importantly as party leader, he has less influence/leverage to keep them individuals muzzled. He recognizes that there is no way to "win" the argument, so he will avoid it as best he can. Regardless, if you think they can draft, and get a bill of that magnitude and impact into law by one year from now you then really don't watch politics much. This is going to be a long debate, and I think they will try and avoid it, particularly as we are heading to an election in a year or so. If you are looking right to find the loudest and most dangerous opposition to legalizing sex-work then you are looking the wrong way. Turn your head 180, and look left. This is where the strongest proponents of the Nordic model are coming from. They don't look at prostitution as being wrong in a moral or religious sense, they see it as wrong in a sense of exploitation. That is why we see "ex-sex workers", radical feminists, etc, all purporting that sex work is exploitation. These are the ones that have the ear of the press, they are the ones who are going to pull out the emotional arguments and find all the exploited victims. They are the activists who already have the machinery behind them to put the argument in place. The victims make much better press, and the media in this country are much bigger whores than anyone we would find on this board. Harper and his guys are going to be looked at as putting forth the moral/religious argument, which these days has little traction overall in this country. Most folks didn't vote for him for his religious convictions despite what many would think. The one argument that is going to get traction in the media is the exploitation angle. It makes much better press. Just watch what the Toronto Star and Globe start printing in the next few days. We are about to enter a period of very interesting times.

Name tags? Really? Hey gang there is a simple solution to this. You walk up to somebody and do what I do. I say. " Hi I am Scott, pleased to meet you, my handle on cerb is Canuckhooker". It's not rocket surgery. :P

Didn't have to Google, it was addressed at the beatnik Maynard G Krebs (Bob Denver, later to be Gilligan) in The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis. (I just called it Dobie Gillis) Damn, I remember Captain Kangaroo with cartoon segments of Tom Terrific "Down Might Manfred!" Because I grew up in Toronto we watched a lot of our TV from Buffalo. I do remember this US Air Force recruiting commercial with a really dated song that I loved in the day. It is corny, and overly jingoistic, or as my Dad would say. "Yankee BS" but as a 5 year old kid, I loved the music and the pictures of all those amazing jets. I would come running whenever I heard in on the tube. Which was probably better than my younger brother who came running for the Mr Clean commercials. :P

hmmm could we find a steakhouse that would let us have the whole place? The mind boggles. :P

I would vote for March, for two reasons. First we might be burning ourselves out by having them more frequently. Tough on organizers, tough on out of towners, etc. The novelty wears off a bit. Secondly, in March the weather may be a bit better. Even though it is an indoor event, there is less chance of storms, and maybe even a more pleasant walk to the venue. One day before the solstice, and who knows what that may herald?

Send up a freaking flare!!!!

Perhaps his greatest contribution was the belief that there can be no peace without forgiveness. His capacity to forgive and strive for the greater good of all of his countrymen was truly admirable.

Oh my... already on page 2 and nobody has mentioned Bruno Gerrusi as Nick Adonidas on the Beachcombers. I wanted to live in Gibson's.

Get a room at the Hilton Bonaventure in the winter time, and then swim in the outdoor rooftop pool, with big bonfires on the deck and watch the snowflakes fall.

Technically it was a part time paper route, but practically I started working for H&R Block right before my 16th birthday. I ended up working for them for three years during tax season. I started out doing administrative worked and by my final year at the ripe old age of 18, I was managing a small one or two person office for them, and writing customers taxes during weeknights and all day Saturday. I learned a hell of a lot, and as I found out later in life, that job experience and my evaluation by a senior executive got me an early acceptance to my university of choice. Something that may not have happened due to my marks, and lack of extra-curricular involvement in high school. It shot me to the head of what was a very long line of applicants, a large percentage of whom, weren't accepted. It essentially set me up for a very long career. In my later life, when interviewing university students for entry level IT positions I was astounded how many of them didn't put their part time job experience on their CV's. I had one lad who I asked about his work experience and his reply was that he only worked at McDonald's. When pressed he said he worked their for three years, and ended up in a supervisory role, but didn't think it relevant to his application. As I told him, I can teach you the technical aspect of your job, but I cannot give you the experience and life lessons you learned by working at McD's. (responsiblity, leadership, punctuality, etc etc.) So many people undervalue some of the most important experiences, that tell you a lot about a person's character.

I would suggest the means of communication would be a big deciding factor. I think you would have had to have seen the provider previously, and expressed some kind of interest in seeing them again. Or, you have exchanged other communications and have some sort of relationship. In that case, I don't think that a quick "Hi I am in your town next week for three days, if you are interested." type PM on CERB would be out of line. If the person said contact me using another means, and let me know when you are in town, then using that means would not be out of line either. (hobby e-mail, text to safe phone, whatever) I see these as informational messages rather than being a form of soliciting. You are letting someone know of an unusual availability.

To address the point cinelli made, I am in partial agreement with what he said. I am not going to downplay the fact that he needs to be accommodated and that PTSD is a serious problem. However that being said, accommodation only goes so far. Since PTSD is a job-related illness, perhaps instead of accommodating him at work he should be removed from duty and placed on long term disability as he is clearly unable to do the job of a peace officer due to his medication. This happens to people everyday in all lines of work, where they are no longer able to function in their job. It is why they have disability programs in their contracts. Cinelli's point is valid that by him remaining at work, but unable to do all the duties of his job, he is putting a strain not only on the organization, but his colleagues. He is taking the place of someone who can do all the roles. His colleagues now get all the midnights, now get all the unwanted duties, get less flexibility in time off, and spending time with families etc. Perhaps he should have thought of that before he decided to act the fool and try and show up the organization in the press. Having been in a military organization as a young man I frequently had people who worked for me who were injured or unable to perform duties for a variety of reasons. That meant others had to pick up the slack, which most would gladly do for their colleagues. However, if that person started "rubbing it in" that they didn't have to do the crappy tasks, or abused the situation, they would be set right very quickly, and most likely removed far away from the work environment.