fortunateone

There is a specific face book site, but i can't remember where or what it is. This might lead to more articles for you: https://www.facebook.com/sexworklawreform

I only go to stores where i can get in and out without walking 3 blocks to the milk section, then 3 blocks back to where to buy it, and then still have to put it in the bag myself after paying for it. So while i may not only select the owner operated store, I am more likely to be in Waves over Starbucks. It's a chain, but a small one. Dollarama, not Walmart, etc, in a small mall (one floor, 10 shops) not a metropolis mall. I have a friend who when he finds something he is looking for at a particular store, even BB or FS or (hey those are funny!) or LD (London Drugs), he simply returns to the same location, to the same person. He'll call to see when that person is working, and goes back to work only with them. I think the clerks encountered in the OPs example are pushed by employers to do all that. In some places, failure to say certain things can lead to problems for the employee. i think they should have backed off once they asked and you answered of course.

Great article, i have posted the link elsewhere to get more views i hope. :)

Street work will always be the focus, doesn't matter what they do or don't do with this bill. It is just easier. You could see how much $$ and effort went into the January sweep, for very little in the way of results. maybe they learned to figure out how to get better results from looking at online advertising because of the mistakes they made in that operation. But when you contact 330 sps across the country based on their advertising, and find one single one under 18, and one other one in a coercive (according to them) situation, then you are obviously going to stick with what you know, the cheaper focus on sex work where you know you can arrest 20 people in one night with 5 cops.

Report these ads to backpage. Use the other ad to prove it is fake, and give the info in that cerb thread, that email $ transfer is required. It is clearly same ad posted in two cities at the same time, that alone should get bp to act to remove one or both, but saying they are also scamming for $$ might get the whole account blocked. I am posting as well as reporting, to encourage everyone to report for the same thing, since more reports might get faster results.

I don't see a problem with them needing to have a warrant for this information. Certainly they don't have a problem with the warrant, if there is illegal activity and they have a good enough info to present to a judge to get a warrant, i don't see a problem. Not having a warrant is a problem, I think. i don;t think that if they gave the site info to a judge and it was clearly child porn, distribution or discussion or whatever, that any judge is really going to say, uh, nope, i don't think i'll give you a warrant for this.

You might need to note that Hillyer believes that advertising online is currently illegal. A reminder in there that it is not might be helpful, and also a quote that he seems to think it will be OK to break the law? Plus he seems to believe that SCC requested legislation, which they did not do as it is quoted here what they actually said: There is nothing in there that says they required Parliament to do anything.

This is what the SCC said: This is what Jim Hillyer of Lethbridge had to say about advertising in general: So Hillyer thinks that the new law isn't a problem because advertising (online) is already illegal which it is not, but that's not my main point. My main point is that he says because it is already illegal, but sps are doing it anyway, they can just continue to break the new laws just as they are breaking the current laws, so why is anyone objecting to the new laws?

Perhaps when lakeranger returns to the club, he can assure the ladies they've been spoofed by these fake SC guys?

Oh, and i saw it used again today in yet another article, however this time they cropped it to show only the legs in stockings and heels.

I agree, OD. When the city that issues adult services licenses in Saskatoon does enforcement and information visits, it is LE that does it. That includes making fake appts with sps visiting or local who i guess don't put their license# in their ads. And dancers at SCs. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/04/saskatoon-woman-says-police-vice-squad-accused-her-of-being-an-unlicensed-stripper-on-a-girls-night-out/

The danger to clients could be that an sp's phone is tapped, however there isn't any legal way for anyone to get the warrant to tap the sp phone. They'd have to show she is potentially doing something illegal, which bill C-36 actually deliberately says (for the most part) that there won't be anything that will criminalize sps. It is a circle, really, on the one hand you can't tap the clients phones, but they are the 'criminals' so if you want to catch them you want to tap their phone. Since sps are not doing anything criminal, it would be an invasion of their privacy to then say you 'need' to tap their phone to find criminals I just don't see any judges wanting to jump into the potential legalities of that. Especially if it means they might find one guy a week, from one sp. There is no upside to such an idea. LE focus will still be 80% street, and 19% massage parlour. And massage parlour is only going to be going in by chance, hoping they find someone in there to charge, since they won't be able to charge the sps, it doesn't leave a lot of other people. Street work, of course, the obvious solution. They have to be able to say they are tough on crime and saving the victims, so they set up an undercover one or two busy nights a month, arrest 10-20 guys a night, and done, saving the children from perverts once again. After that, and only if the funding is there, which it isn't, they will maybe twice a year do an online ad, to get guys coming in to communicate and/or pay for sexual services (as they do in the USA). Easy pickings, the ads will be for 22 year olds offering everything for 150/hr. A ton of red flags to anyone with a bit of common sense, so these ads will get those guys who maybe really are predators (looking for the desperate newbie) or the guys who really haven't done this before and are more likely to be ripped off by an unscrupulous sp than they are to do her any harm. The ads by legit sps will simply look like the ones in the US. time/companionship and roses.

Joy Smith bragged she got a ton of postcards, so doing snail mail is probably a good idea. If you know the mp's name, then a simple google will direct you to their office address. Also, I imagine if they are in session, there must be a main address to mail to, and then it is simply having their name on it, party, etc. Also recommend you send letters/emails to the people on the Justice Committee. Most important are the Vice-chair, Boiven and Casey, who have both expressed their views are against C-36. The mp for Esquimalt (NDP) already came out today and said he will not be voting for this bill. it would be great to hear from others saying the same thing so firmly. He expressed this based on long discussions with PEERS in Victoria, BC, in person, in phone conversation, and letter or press release they gave out. http://randallgarrison.ndp.ca/ this links to his info, but it shows the Hill Office address, which i am sure you could mail all your letters with different names on them. The great thing about Garrison is that he is solidly anti-C36, and no one can say it is because he's a guy and keeping prostitution in place is in his best interest as a guy. But he's a gay guy, and everyone knows that bill C-36 doesn't care about male sps, so he can't be said to have a biased interest in keeping a supply of sps for himself ...... and yes, that is an accusation radfems hurl at any man who says he is interested in the rights of sex workers to determine their own working conditions and to decide what is safe for them. :) :)

Committee is supposed to be in July. Bolvin mentioned it in debate today a little while ago, while referring to actual consultation with people asked to present. She is still asking where is the poll results, and calling into suspicious the results of the survey as not scientific, yet it is the one the govt seems to rely on completely? My new sig: http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=607096#post607096

Much of the discussion, and people's opinions are in here, aka i don't want to keep repeating what I myself have commented on this already. http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=607096#post607096 Also recommend everyone check out In the News section, and see the articles, etc others have taken the time to find and post, for discussion. there.

Peachy, there is 19 pages on the topic here: http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=607096#post607096 Also i would recommend checking out In The News section, where many are providing links to articles and commentaries and information from others interpreting this bill as it is now. In other words, no I do not want to repeat what I have already posted elsewhere, nor do i want to go hunt down my own posts with the links from those various sources lol

Damn, since this one was put up, now I have to wait until tonight to put up mine. I wouldn't want too many on the same topic done at the exact same time, that would be crazy. I am going to put this http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=607096#post607096 in all my posts from now on.

Problem with so many different threads is i can never find a link I want to add to the new topic lol. But here is another poll to vote on http://rabble.ca/polls/what-do-you-think-about-peter-mackays-proposed-sex-work-law It is set up oddly. The only way to view the results, after you've voted and possibly moved onto another subject, is to vote again.

I haven't seen one recent poll specifically about C-36 that suggests any kind of support for it. I've seen the question, do you support this bill, be answered anywhere from 78% NO to 92% NO.

According to one of the many threads (in other words i don't remember which one :) ) in the News section, it seems like Mckay is saying either this one passes or there won't be anything at all to replace it. Which does NOT mean that there would be no laws regarding prostitution. There are plenty of laws, which cover a variety of scenarios regarding minimum age, coercion, exploitation, and even trafficking, assault and forcible confinement. Here is a recent list of charges against one of 8 people charged recently: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/human-trafficking-probe-leads-to-8-arrests-44-charges-1.2667062 Keep in mind that both McKay, C-36, and abolitionists are all currently saying there are NO laws on the books that can be applied, until or unless C-36 is passed, women, children, and possibly small animals, are all at risk to be trafficked and exploited. Toronto police dept begs to differ, they have arrested 8 people, 2 of them under 18, and laid a total of 44 charges. One of these young guys (all of these people are 25 and under), has had 13 charges laid. There were 'under 10' victims, from 14-17. (if under 10, why can't they just say it was 8 or 9 or 7 whatever). Here is another successful arrest and charge, this time for someone who was over 18 but coerced. http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/29348 I am not happy with the misrepresentation by govt and abolitionists about the existing laws related to protecting the safety and liberty of underage and/or coerced sex workers. The TPD has proven that the existing laws are sufficient.

I don't accept anonymous contact, discussion or booking. Which includes forum handles, and emails, and chat (which is enabled on a few ad only sites, meaning that someone with a handle there will not ever have posts or a profile that can be reviewed) I feel it resolves a lot of issues. Plus when someone is told via chat, email, or pm that they need to call for the info, and that phone call never comes? tells me everything i need to know about them, i.e. they don't or won't respect the sp boundaries and/or requirements.

My guess is that the prosecution first brings it up, asking the judge to put the person on as an offender, then the judge would go thru the list of acceptable reasons and determine if the prosecution has made a case for including that offender on the list. i don't think we are at a place where anyone is, if the bill passes, going to mess with it by giving anyone a valid excuse to challenge this in appeals, as it would open the whole topic of purchase ban to the SCC, not just whether or not a charge for that can get someone added to the offenders list.

I've been wanting to see both, but they haven't appeared on my VOD (the free one lol). I just saw We're The Millers, which actually made me lol, which with average comedies isn't that easy, it's just that the way they put things together in the movie was very well done. Guys will enjoy the strip by Jennifer, everyone will appreciate how she does the finale at the end of the dance :)

They've had the ban on purchase for many years in Sweden, and they've never actually put anyone in jail. It seems to be a cash grab, the person gets a fine, pays the fine, but judges aren't giving out jail time. Not that it makes it any better, of course, but the way to get your name in the papers is to be something like the police chief, or a politician who owns massage parlours, or the justice dept lawyer who is in charge of actually laying charges against clients (all of which have been in the news in Sweden)

I think Benedet is reading into it, for the purpose of disseminating misleading information in the way the Rescue Industry abolitionists are famous for. She and McKay seem to be the only ones quoted or interviewed in any recent article to suggest that criminalizing the purchase has any hope of passing an SCC scrutiny. It's wishful thinking on her part I think. Additional Comments: Here is a litany of things that exploiters can be charged with, using the current set of laws. Just in case you have a debate with any abolitionists who claim that c-36 is the only solution to stopping those who would force unwilling and underage people into work. If anyone tells you we need new laws, and that C-36 is going to fix 'everything', here are the current charges against this group. Now tell me, anyone, if this is an insufficient list to cover all the major issues that any abolitionist has with the sex trade: http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/29315 As a result of the executed search warrants, the following people have been arrested and charged: Shanicka Providence, 18, of Toronto 1) Conspiracy to Commit an Indictable Offence 2) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 3) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 4) Forcible Confinement 5) Procure to become a Prostitute 6) Exercise Control 7) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 8) Uttering Threats 9) Assault 10) Telecommunication Agreement to Commit Specific Criminal Offences Young Person, 17, of Toronto 1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 3) Procure to become a Prostitute 4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 5) Exercise Control 6) Fail to Comply with Probation Order (two counts) Tchello Whyte, 25, of Toronto 1) Possession of Child Pornography 2) Sexual Assault 3) Sexual Interference 4) Procure to become a Prostitute 5) Exercise Control 6) Make Child Pornography 7) Fail to Comply with Probation Order Alia Alexandra Abdellatif , 25, of Toronto 1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 2) Procure to become a Prostitute 3) Exercise Control 4) Make Child Pornography 5) Imports, Distributes, Sells or Possesses Child Pornography (two counts) 6) Possession of Child Pornography Young Person, 17, of Toronto 1) Procure to become a Prostitute 2) Fail to Comply with Probation Order (three counts) Markus Cole, 20, of Toronto 1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years Young Person, 17, of Toronto 1) Procure to become a Prostitute Anthony Talbert, 21, of Toronto 1) Sexual Assault 2) Assault 3) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 4) Fail to Comply Recognizance 5) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 6) Procure to become a Prostitute 7) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 8) Exercise Control Warrants have been issued for the arrest of the following people: Darren Letts, 22, of Toronto 1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 3) Procure to become a Prostitute 4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 5) Exercise Control 6) Sexual Assault 7) Sexual Interference Jason Bartley, 19, of Toronto 1) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 2) Import, Distribute, Sells or Possesses Child Pornography (four counts) 3) Possession of Child Pornography (two counts) 4) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 5) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 6) Procure to become a Prostitute Brian MacKenzie, 22, of Toronto 1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 3) Procure to become a Prostitute 4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 5) Exercise Control 6) Uttering Threats 7) Forcible Confinement 8) Telecommunication Agreement to Commit Specific Criminal Offences 9) Fail to Comply with Probation Order 10) Make Child Pornography Kamille Fraser, 21, of Toronto 1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 3) Procure to become a Prostitute 4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 5) Exercise Control 6) Forcible Confinement http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/29327 On Saturday, June 7, 2014, one of the outstanding Project Dove suspects surrendered to police at 43 Division. Brian Mackenzie, 22, of Toronto, was charged with: 1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 3) Procure to become a Prostitute 4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 5) Exercise Control 6) Uttering Threats 7) Forcible Confinement 8) Telecommunication Agreement to Commit Specific Criminal Offences 9) Fail to Comply with Probation Order 10) Make Child Pornography 11) Import, Distributes, sells or possess for the purpose of Distribute 12) Possession of Child pornography 13) Import, Distributes, sells or possess for the purpose of Distribute. On Sunday, June 8, 2014, another Project Dove suspect, Kamille Fraser, 21, of Toronto, was arrested. She was charged with: 1) Trafficking in Persons under eighteen years by recruiting 2) Material benefit resulting from trafficking in persons 3) Procure to become a Prostitute 4) Living on avails of Juvenile Prostitution 5) Exercise control 6) Forcible confinement. Warrants have been issued for the arrest of the following people: Darren Letts, 22, of Toronto: 1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 3) Procure to become a Prostitute 4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 5) Exercise Control 6) Sexual Assault 7) Sexual Interference Jason Bartley, 19, of Toronto: 1) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 2) Import, Distribute, Sells or Possesses Child Pornography X4 3) Possession of Child Pornography X2 4) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 5) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 6) Procure to become a Prostitute