fortunateone

Here is an article with a lot of input from a variety of people http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/story/sex-workers-say-new-prostitution-bill-dangerous-po/30888

KEWTODAY Fierce Indigenous Feminism is the tag line. [url]http://kwetoday.com/2014/06/04/enddemand-why-bill-c36-is-like-working-at-macdonalds-if-purchasing-burgers-were-criminal/[/url] [QUOTE][Trigger Warning: Violence] Today was a hard day. I had a day full of classes (okay, not exactly full day of classes more like ended at 2pm and then I had to stick around for a couple of meetings). It was a busy day, nevertheless. Aside from classes and these meetings, the Department of Justice also released their Bill entitled The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. You can find a direct link in the link provided here but I suggest reading the provided link here first. It is a much easier read. This Bill works off the premise that it will protect the alleged victims from the alleged pimps, johns, and the big bad traffickers. It also assumes that consensual sex between adults is inherently violent and degrading. It adopts the â??End Demandâ? approach to prostitution as opposed to the harm reduction model (ie/ reducing harms and making it safer for sex workers). I was thinking today about what this means for sex workers and their families and friends. The Bill doesnâ??t just target the pimps, johns, and traffickers. It also points to further alienation and isolation from support networks for sex workers (which is really fuckin horrible because the industry was previously alienating and isolating under the old legal regime). I noticed a lot of commentary on this Bill and some interesting analogies on twitter especially from non-sex workers. It got me thinking about another analogyâ?¦ Why Bill-C36 is like working at MacDonaldâ??s (if purchasing burgers were criminal). I have never worked at MacDonaldâ??s but thatâ??s okay because many non-sex workers who come up with their own analogies never done sex work either (and I say many because some non-sex workers might have been sex workers in their life at one point). So not having experiencing working in fast food doesnâ??t negate this analogy because I ate their burgers before too! Thatâ??s just like having sex and automatically becoming an expert on sex work! First things first, the burger that MacDonaldâ??s is selling, the act of buying it is criminalized (amongst many other behaviours associated with selling the burgerâ??like where they can sell it, and how or who they can advertise to sell it). The whole objective of criminalizing the purchasing of burgers is to â??end demandâ? of burgers. Stop your degrading burger cravings from happening again! The first way MacDonaldâ??s is like sex work is that not everyone wants to do it. Still, some people have to do it whether they like it or notâ??they still need to eat. And heck, I hear you get 50% off burgers at McDicks if you work there! Though that part isnâ??t like sex work because they still have to pay for their burgers at McDicks at full price. But what if buying burgers at MacDonaldâ??s was criminalized? And I donâ??t extend this analogy to all products being sold at McDeeâ??s because sometimes people just want a big juicy burger to satisfy their cravings. In the sex trade industry, with this new Bill, it appears that it will just be targeting full service sex workers or sex workers that only advertise sexual services that are criminalized (not all sex work is criminal, like exotic dancing). This is an important point to make because not all sex workers offer the same services and not all services involve sexual services (like oral or full service). So you can equate prostitutes (and I use that term purely as a legal term) to workers at MacDonaldâ??sâ??BUT only the workers that make the big, juicy burgers (you know, sometimes with all the extra toppingsâ?¦ mmmmm). So you are craving a MacDonaldâ??s burger, what do you do? On one hand, well, you go out looking for a MacDonaldâ??s. The MacDonaldâ??s doesnâ??t come looking for youâ??well okay maybe except those stupid television commercials and flyers that the postman delivers. Except now, the networks that air those commercials and the postmen that are being paid to deliver those flyers, yeah, they are now criminalized too! They are advertising those big juicy burgers and enticing you to buy those burgers! Bad, bad bad! We must stop that so that you stop craving those burgers! *poof* ALL MACDONALDâ??S ADVERTISEMENTS ON THE TUBE AND IN THE MAIL GONE! But you know what, you still want that burgerâ?¦ You then get into your car, knowing that there is a MacDonaldâ??s out there somewhere that is selling that burger. Except now, the one thing about MacDonaldâ??s is that they are never in residential areas (sometimes in smaller cities, no where near a school or a church). Within the context of this Bill, it would be criminal if you found a MacDonaldâ??s in any of those areas (near a school or church) and purchased that burger to help quench your cravings. So instead, what you have to do is drive to the outskirts of town (letâ??s say) just to get that burger. On the other hand, sometimes, people donâ??t crave burgers from MacDonaldâ??s. Some people buy MacDonaldâ??s just because they see it! The Big â??Mâ?! Nom nom nom nom nom! And sometimes people buy MacDonaldâ??s just because they are about to drive by one. â??Wait, turn! I want some McDeeâ??s!â? The availability of it allâ??the big â??M,â? the juicy burgerâ?¦ *drool* And actually, research by John Lowman indicates that the industry is not driven by the demand of burgers, it is driven by the supply of the burgers. No really though, John Lowman, a criminologist, has found that the clients of sex workers are not driven by their demand but the supply (or the availability) of services.[1] So whether it is a craving, people are still going to be selling burgers at MacDonaldâ??s and whether it is criminal to sell burgers at MacDonaldâ??s near a school or a church, people are still going to be selling burgers somewhere. And people want to buy burgers for all sorts of different reasonsâ??because they are craving the burger or they see the â??M!â? for example. And I mean, the fries and the drink that you want to buy that come with the cheeseburger meal, thatâ??s okay to purchase. You just canâ??t buy those damn burgers! You drive up into MacDonaldâ??s and you know that the burger you so strongly want to eat (no pun intended), people are going to look down on you for eating it because the policy that says eating it (again no pun intended) is inherently violent and degraded to the person selling it. DONâ??T EAT MY BURGER THAT I AM SELLING YOU BIG BAD PERSON! Lol Yet, the person selling the burger knows all of thisâ??they know that the burger they are selling is a criminalized act. In fact, they know that working for their employer, MacDonaldâ??s, and those pictures of the burgers all over the placeâ?¦thatâ??s criminal too! They know that they shouldnâ??t have children in the building and they know that anyone under 18 shouldnâ??t be working there and that anyone who is under 18 (or is believed to be 18) shouldnâ??t be even near another employee that is under the age of 18 years (thatâ??s criminal too). So, only adults are able to work at MacDonaldâ??s now. You then have to get rid of all the playgrounds and no more Happy Meals! And that darn fuckin burger, you still want it. You walk into MacDonaldâ??s and you notice that there are no advertisements for burgersâ??you see fries, salads, chicken nuggets, pop, muffins. But no fuckin burgers! So you quietly ask the employee taking your order, â??Do you have any burgers for sale?â? The employee doesnâ??t really know who you are but the employee knows that if they spend too much time talking to you trying to determine if you actually want just a burger or are some sort of predator that is asking for burger but want the whole fuckin menu without paying for it, they could cause some unwanted attention from the Burger Police. And nobody likes the Burger Police. The employee really doesnâ??t have any time to negotiate how serious your burger cravings areâ?¦ the burger is sold anyways without even determining a firm price of the burger. The employee brings the order to you, and then tells you the price of your burger. You are upset! You did not expect to pay that much for that burger and now you want your money back. All. Of. It! You threaten the employee that if you donâ??t give back the money you paid for your entire order (not just the burger), that something terrible will happen to either the employee or at the place of business (MacDonaldâ??s). The employee, out of fear that you will do something terribly bad, gives you back your entire monies that you paid for your order. That, or you just beat the employee and take the money too. Because you know that, with her working for her employer, her employer isnâ??t supposed to be selling those burgers and that she could lose her job if anybody found out. After you leave, her employer is upset that you stole money or that you threatened the employee in order to have your money returned to you (even after you ate the burger). So then, her employer forces her to work longer hours and for less than minimum wage.[2] And all of this: working longer hours and being paid less than minimum wage, it is violation of employment and labour codes/rights. But thatâ??s where this analogy ends. For people who work at MacDonaldâ??s, they do have access to rights, like the right to be paid minimum wage (because we all know if MacDonaldâ??s could pay their employees less, they probably would), and these employees have recourse if they experience rights violations. Sex workers, when their work is criminalized (either the selling or purchasing of their services), they do not have any recourse for anythingâ??violence, assault, sexual assault, etc. Thatâ??s why the decriminalization of sex work is importantâ??it creates access to other rights that other non-sex work individuals have access too like labour and human rights. I choose MacDonaldâ??s because, in our society, it is a stigmatized job. The argument that the antis always bring up is, â??Nobody dreams of becoming a prostitute!â? And when I was growing up, I heard similar arguments for MacDonaldâ??s (nobody wants to work at MacDonalds!). But you know what, some people do work at MacDonaldâ??s whether they like it or not. The difference is that they can file complaints to address rights violations. Sex workers canâ??t â?¦ and that is because of criminalization. This will be the case under Bill C-36. It wonâ??t help with accessing services, like health care, any better either. And if you are thinking this analogy is ludicrous, good job! Thatâ??s the Bill for you: itâ??s so ludicrous that itâ??s downright unbelievable! Anyways, my final point is this: Instead of having everyone suddenly claiming to be a sex work expert, letâ??s just all sit back and let actual sex workers be the real experts on the issue. Just because you had sex once, doesnâ??t make you a sex work expert ;) [/QUOTE]

That's funny, because all of the news media articles tell us a different story: Johns: shady individuals who lurk in their cars, dark interior and roam around the streets in the darkness of the night. Prostitutes: High heels, short skirts, short jackets, if they are wearing one, but also roaming around the streets in the darkness of night. sometimes they will be seen leaning into a car window. This picture has actually been used in more than one story recently lol http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/09/calgary-overstepped-its-role-when-it-spent-21000-studying-prostitution-laws-abroad-taxpayer-federation-says/

This is one of the comments in the comments section for this article: [QUOTE]gayedalton Guest â?¢ a day ago I can't get it to play for me right now but, in my experience, almost every former sex worker claiming to be traumatised by her experience is some kind of fraud. Not because nobody is ever traumatised, but rather because those who are move on in a healthy way and leave it behind them. Even so, why should I be harassed and persecuted for something that *SOMEBODY ELSE* found traumatic? Should we criminalise everything I ever found traumatic just in case it might traumatise someone else?[/QUOTE] gaye is a former sex worker, who is an avid anti-abolitionist anti-NGO rescue project person, and has a blog regarding mythbuster, about different sex work myths. She was an unhappy sex worker, but vigorously defends the rights of adult consensual workers to give that consent and hates the people trying to take that choice from them. she has other comments posted in the article. :)

I don't know. The other story you posted about it being something they came up with for the conservatives to agree with, pressuring them by saying vote for this as is, or the only other option is complete legalization. Well, if no one is happy with this mess of laws, why not simply go back to decriminalization to control it in a regulatory way? It seems more about punishing the clients than any other thing.

I wonder if it might go back to codes, like half hour rate was actually a bj only rate, and the hour rate meant FS? But that is just advertising, and isn't it supposed to be that sps themselves can post ads for themselves, and since what they offer and sell isn't supposed to be criminalized, they are free to say and post whatever they wish? as long as the cost to post the ad is free, and no one is making money off her posting the ad?

Should I clarify? LE already thinks that clients are pervs, at least the ones who see the street workers. So a bill telling them that they are supposed to see them as perverts isn't going to change the fact that they already do think that. :)

I find there are a lot of old time clients still using paper ads, those two line plus a 3rd line for the phone# style, no pics, no menus, etc etc, and they seem to do just fine getting the info, making the appt, and showing up and having a good time. Maybe the online internet ad reliant types are going to have to adjust how they deal with this biz, but that might be a good thing?

Incalls were never grey. To the point people always thought well, the sp rents a hotel room, that will fix it. It didn't. As long as the sp is in one location, and clients come to her, that made it a bawdy house, i.e. criminalized. People assumed it was OK because no one ever got arrested for it, unless you were at a massage parlour of course. \ \So that law got applied against massage parlours because once you prove prostitution was occuring you got another handy charge to lay against the owners. But indy sps, that's a lot of man hours investigating someone who may see a handful of clients in a week. LE would find it hard to prove sex work was going on with so few to report going in and out.

I read a story from the city of Calgary council person who said they did not think the nordic model (i.e. this model) was a good idea. LE themselves seem to think it is, tho i think the Calgary chief of police had much to say in support of it. However, keeping in mind that a lot of people supportive of the intent of the Nordic model are not supportive at all about what C-36 is all about. Additional Comments: It isn't from 2013, that is just the way it appears. The poll itself was specific to a recent article in the cbc site. And today,. the link is now going for a different story, about social media and the police. I am guessing their site is not well set up?

I say, pay in advance, a few days before the encounter. not a few days later. We all know how that goes lol

but LE doesn't see the clients and sps as any different. A new bill isn't going to have them seeing you as any more or less the perv they currently view clients. And I agree, enforcement is most likely to go the same way that incall laws are currently enforced, as in not at all, for indoor workers. It seems that the indy incall worker is at the same place with the proposed laws as they were with the overturned ones. The ones that concern me are the street workers, and now we all need to be more concerned about what is to happen to massage parlour and agency employees. While they will probably have to do enforcement in order to make it look like they are actively pursuing the pervs, the bulk of that will always be with the street workers. It's just too easy to get the numbers within a few hours or over a couple of days, and low cost as well. They charge 25 guys in a few hours, and stats start to look really good. Like all stats about 'all' sex workers, there isn't going to be any differentiation between outdoor and indoor, so the stats will still appear to be affecting both :) I can't stress this enough tho, if the bill as unlikely as it is now were to pass, stop doing everything in emails or texts. Does LE want to see what 'communicating' is all about? They will simply read your texts. If you have a conversation, it is unlikely they can get the OK for wire tapping any sp's phone, and they aren't going to do yours, so no record. That's worst case scenario of course. Opposition parties are already calling on the govt to send this bill to the SCC right now. There are so many holes in it, very few are going to let it pass in the form it is right now. The govt already knows this. This bill is considered a nose thumbing at the SCC for overturning the prior laws against the wishes of the govt, even the the govt failed to defend their position in court to prove they were valid. I mean, how do you go from the SCC saying that public communication (solicitation) is dangerous for street workers, to creating a bill that plans to make all communication in all locations criminal?

Lyme disease has been in the news lately. Tis the season i thought, but maybe the headlines i was seeing was referring to your story?

I don't think she has any doubts about that. lol Which is why i think she is a good one to start with. Also, mps, etc, can be asked why existing laws can't be used for cases involving sex workers. Why are sex workers singled out for 'special' short bus laws, that are not created for any other type of citizen or worker? Is it not already a crime for anyone under 18 to be involved in sex work? is it not already a crime for people to be forced, or coerced, or have all their $$ taken from them? And if these things continue to be criminalized, and the reason for any laws are to protect victims, vulnerable, coerced, underagers, etc, then in what way do any of the new proposed laws do anything in regards to those issues?

I would suggest copies actually go out to the Justice critics of those parties. In fact the Quebec one has already brought up a poll done in January, asking why it hasn't been released before the one just done by the govt in March. Why is the govt delaying the results right up until the mandatory release date (which is they can hold onto something for 6 months max).

Why rants & raves, or casual encounters even, why haven't they moved into Therapuetic. Really curious, because TS seems so obvious for body rubs, and escort ads lol (as in yes, in Vancouver and surrounding areas, hundreds of ads daily in TS) it's a service, it's a business. Additional Comments: And that is definitely an issue. I think i posted probably in this thread regarding public opinion (based on reading thousands of comment posts in a few articles that came out (against this bill), and it has been suggested that the govt plans for this bill to fail. Not just a little bit of a failure, but a huge failure. At which time they can say to their abolitionist and NIMBY supporters how hard they tried to do the right thing, but those evil pot smoking harlot loving Liberals/NDP/Bloq perverts resisted the chance to help the victims, so it failed. Oh well, see you next election, where we will be sure to remind you about those other political party perverts who want 15 year old forced sex work labour on every schoolyard corner!

^^^ I think a lot of people forget that each and every day, even with the exchange of $$ for sexual activities, the majority of sps/clients have been breaking a variety of laws for about 30 years now. It is a criminal act to be in an incall provided by the sp (bawdy house). If you do street work, it is a criminal act to discuss in public the conditions of paying for sexual activities with the sp. If you use an agency, 'technically' they are procuring for you by advertising the sp services and connecting you with that sp, and sending her to you (in their own vehicles), and if you go to the mp, again it is a bawdy house, with or without a bodyrub city license. The question with those laws is one of enforcement. Massage parlours are infrequently raided, and street workers and their clients were constantly charged or stings in place. SWs will continue to be the easy fix and the easy target. Incalls and indy sps will continue to be the things LE doesn't enforce because of time and $$ constraints, and the fact the pay off is simply not there. If they do sting, they will probably stick to what works, and what is worthwhile doing, as in charges against clients seeking the services of under 18 sps.

There is a lengthy discussion here. I'm sure all the topics, as well as some fear mongering and hysterics, will be thrashed out lol http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=181850 A bill is not a law. A bill is something the one presenting the bill would like to be a law. keep in mind Joy Smith already presented a bill which no one agreed would be a law, it didn't make it past one of the required readings? Someone could fill in the details there. If the mcKay bill is a copy of that one, it may suffer the same short life of no one wanting to see it past the introduction. General public opinion seems to think they've lost their minds with what they've come up with http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/06/power-politics-ballot-box-question-281.html

True, but i do not know of any dating website, even with casual encounters, that will not zap and block any sp using their site this way. And all it takes is a guy contact for NSA and her telling him how much for him to report her Usually dating sites are the last place anyone wants to try to use to advertise. But there are free ad sites, including cerb. Which could also start requesting donations and/or membership fees to offset what they used to collect for banner advertising. provided they have a Adult only disclaimer and age verification confirmation page.

i see all these stories, articles and opinion pieces now that the bill is introduced but prior to all this, the articles, stories and opinions, with few exceptions, were loving the Nordic model, imo. To the point that pics would reflect the dangers of the streets, the focus would always make sure than any pro sex work comments were suitably compromised by abolitionist nonsense. Now all of a sudden it occurs to everyone that it was always a bad idea? in some ways, they got what they wanted by letting the political powers that be think that the media en masse was behind them in public opinion. Now every poll and every headline is all about what a big mess they've made of it. Well, how could they not, the media just spent some time looking over the survey results, and expected something to be based on the survey results, never thinking that the bill had been written long before the results were known, let alone released. the results publicized were simply going to be fudged to set up the presentation of the bill.

But i think you can't offer that moon, because he's planning to take away all the advertising venues too, isn't he. So how will anyone know what we are offering, with no place to offer it? Chicken and egg lol

It is currently actually illegal for massage spas to advertise sexual services at all, let alone provide them in the illegal bawdy house arrangement or collect the fees for said services on behalf of the provider, etc etc.. Or 'procure' the services of sps/mps for clients in a 3rd party way. So in other words, who knows what the result of this bill, should it get passed at some future date.

No doubt at all! I was coming at it more from the idea that it 'can't' be regulated or that there 'won't' be any regulations on this or other safety/health issues, and brought up the very noticeable fact that NZ (and Nevada) have actual regulations on this very thing. So in other words it can be regulated, like the safety boots and equipment, even tho some people, like your sister's coworkers, still don't follow the regulations. And in that particular example, she is the one to enforce it in the workplace, that particular workplace. It is assumed that other commercial workplaces would also have someone similar 'in charge' of it all. Let's be honest here: the other sps working in a brothel in NZ are going to see the same clients as the sp (or sps) who provide more than the OHS allows. The client is going to talk about it, ask about, and name names. The other sps are going to report her, simple as that. The employer is at risk for non compliance, the other sps are under pressure from the clients getting something from that sp, and she will have to be let go, unless she follows the regulations I assume. Or she might end up with a visit from the Health department who fines her, or gives her a warning. I can see that there would be an incentive, financially, for not doing it in a brothel setting, where the clients have loose lips so to speak. I can also see false reports, if business is down and one sp over the others is seeing more clients. And then of course, since education of the stds that can be caught via unprotected oral, the sps themselves would lack the incentive to provide it? Education on safer sex practises is one of the key things that helped slow down the spread of HIV, for example. Education is the key to anything.

Also maybe a 'no lifeguard' or 'private property', etc.

This topic reminded me of this article i found the other day. https://www.thedodo.com/21-reasons-you-should-apprecia-544907825.html (I find it interesting the pigeon pictured has golden eyes. Mine has one black eye, and one white eye, i kind of thought white eyes were 'normal") ;) (item #2 is good, but i have also seen videos of tumbler pigeons who do somersaults on the ground).