Nikki Thomas

I can understand the sentiment that more testing = better policy, and that's true to a point. However, mandatory testing is actually counterproductive, and there's good evidence to suggest that it could actually make people engage in more risky behaviour, rather than the reverse. It comes down to something called the Peltzman Effect, a.k.a. Risk Compensation - whenever an external variable decreases risk, then people's own risky behaviour tends to increase as a result. Here's a simple narrative to illustrate this: A client walks into an incall, sees that the girl has her test results on display, and that her results say she's negative for HIV. He says, "Oh, you're clean and I'm clean, can we do BBFS?" He assumes that her negative test means there's no risk for him, so he chooses not to use a condom because he mistakenly believes that the test would have informed him if there was any risk. What he doesn't realize is that there's a 3-month incubation period during which HIV isn't detectable by any test, and he ignores the risk of other STIs - such as syphilis, for example - because he's not worried about contracting HIV. Here's another article I wrote about it, regarding Canada's HIV disclosure laws: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nikki-thomas/hiv-status_b_1937993.html The stats actually show that sex workers are more aware of STIs than the general public, and we tend to have lower STI rates as well, simply because we take proper precautions. It seems like contradictory logic, but the very fact that clients are concerned about STI risk from sex workers means they're far more likely to take proper precautions to reduce that risk on their own. Mandatory testing is not a good means for preventing the spread of STIs, and the UN didn't make that determination lightly - the evidence is very much in favour of not forcing mandatory STI testing on sex workers, not just from a personal perspective, but a public health perspective as well.

Here's a direct link, and I believe they have an account on CERB as well: http://www.sexsafetysecurity.ca/index.php I support this research because I think empirical evidence is important in drafting effective policy, but I also think the value of anecdotal evidence can't be understated in forming public opinion. People love stories, and we see the world as a series of narratives, rather than as an accumulation of evidence. I think both approaches are valid and worthwhile, and both approaches work towards the overall goal - destigmatization of sex workers and the people who love us. ;)

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the support you've given my article. It's had a surprising amount of staying power, and is continuing to make the rounds on Twitter and FB, even almost a week after it was published. I also published it through HuffPo (as I do with all my sex work blog posts) and it seems to have been shared through that medium as well, which is encouraging. I'm of the mind that our best course of action is to continue muddying the waters on all proposed alternatives (especially the Nordic approach) while continuing to both outline all the reasons why it won't work, and why it would be a step backward instead of a step forward. Most critical at this juncture is the need to overwrite the stereotype with a new narrative - the popularity of the Nordic approach in recent discourse is inherently based on the victimization model that is so prevalent in the discussion. Without that stereotype, the value of the Nordic approach declines significantly, because it's all about "saving" victims of the trade while criminalizing the "violent rapists" (a.k.a. the clients) to "help" us fallen women see the light. We all know it's BS, but the general public remains oblivious, without evidence to the contrary. Many other courageous sex workers have already stepped out into the light, and told their stories, and we've seen some progress in this respect. However, the unspoken side of the transaction remains, and we need client voices more than ever. I realize this is a huge imposition to ask, and an impossibility for many of you; and tell his side of the story, and we will be forever grateful that he chose to do this for us. I can't possibly ask other clients to do the same, but I can facilitate client activism in other ways. I'm very friendly with a handful of writers and columnists in the mainstream media (those who have respected my privacy and have been very discreet when interviewing others in the industry) and I would gladly put you in touch with them if you wanted to anonymously tell your story. We have been so fortunate to have built a community of respectful, pleasant gentlemen who love and admire us because of what we do, not merely in spite of it. So, now we're asking for your help - we would benefit greatly from your contributions in this critical time, and I'm happy to help your voices be heard in a way that protects your privacy. Please PM or email me if you'd like more info, and if we show the country how good the industry can be when it's done right, perhaps we can run out the clock on any new legislation, leave the status quo in place, and improve things for all of us. Let me know if you'd like to help out! :)

I wrote a blog post today, outlining the case for no new laws, and detailing how existing provisions in the Criminal Code can already deal with the more harmful and negative circumstances associated with sex work. Please share widely, and feedback is appreciated. :) http://www.msnikkithomas.com/canadas-sex-work-laws-dont-break-what-we-worked-so-hard-to-fix/

My apologies scribbles, I didn't mean to call you out in any way, and on second reading, my post looks especially bitchy on that topic. I withdraw the comment, and wish to rewrite it this way: one of the primary pieces of evidence put forth during the hearings is that Grandma's House, a place where street-based sex workers were permitted to bring clients during the height of the Pickton emergency, was shut down by VPD as a bawdy house. Alan Young successfully argued that the enforcement of this law compromised the safety of sex workers, and that piece of evidence, perhaps more than any other (in Young's opinion) was what convinced the court of the unconstitutionality of the three laws. At any rate, I think we can all agree that decriminalization itself is a noble goal; it's the political BS that comes afterwards (let's call it "recriminalization" for lack of a better word) that's the real problem. The first is a legal issue, whereas the second is a political issue. Shame they're so closely conflated on what consenting adults are permitted to do in private.

Re: Timing - the challenge was actually launched in 2007, at a time of considerable instability in federal politics. The prospect of a Conservative majority was quite unlikely at the time, but more importantly, there was now a wealth of solid empirical evidence showing the damaging nature of the laws that had not existed during the SCC Reference in 1990. Even Bertha Wilson said that, if they knew what they knew in 2007 back in 1990, the SCC's decision would have been very different (she won't be found being quoted as such, that's just something Alan Young told me in passing when we were in the CBC Green Room together). The internet actually played a big role in this, by showing very clearly how much safer sex work could be when conducted exclusively indoors. The idea of leaving the "status quo" in place pretty much evaporated when the full extent of Robert Pickton's murders was realized. If you disagree, then please, feel free to tell the families of the murdered girls that we should have left well enough alone. Re: Standing - it's valuable to note that a concurrent challenge in BC was underway when this all began, with the same general arguments (as well as a S.15 challenge on the basis of equality, which the Ontario Case did not argue). It was launched by the DTES with Sheri Kiselbach and SWUAV as the applicants, and represented by Katrina Pacey & PIVOT Legal. Because none of the applicants identified as active sex workers, the government challenged whether they had standing. It worked its way up through the courts, and in a lesser-known-but-still-important ruling, the SCC held (also in a 9-0 unanimous decision, in September 2012) that they indeed had public interest standing, and allowed the challenge in BC to proceed. By then, the Ontario case was already going to be heard by the SCC, so it was more of a moral victory than anything else, but the SCC's ruling will likely serve as a precedent should further legal action be taken. This makes the standing issue relatively moot; any challenge to a potential Nordic Approach law will argue that it makes screening clients difficult, which the SCC cited as one of the reasons it struck down the S.213© Communicating Law; a similar challenge, launched by sex workers, is unlikely to run into the same problems as the BC challenge because of these recent precedents. As an aside, even though the case is called "Bedford et al" because alphabetically, Terri-Jean Bedford comes first, Amy Lebovich is the only reason that private standing was granted, because Valerie Scott & TJB were retired when the challenge was launched. She's the only woman in Canada who has been recognized by the court as an active sex worker; without her, this case would fallen years behind, just as the Vancouver challenge did. Despite being the least-visible member of the three applicants, Amy is perhaps the most important sex worker in Canada; we should thank her for what she did for our cause. Re: strip clubs/swinger's clubs/etc - my point was not to examine what the courts have ruled on these sorts of clubs in the past, my point was how a law criminalizing purchase of "sexual services" will inherently be poorly defined, without an explicit discussion of what is or is not a "sexual services". Past precedent is somewhat irrelevant because those precedents were themselves based on laws that have since been struck down; R v Kouri explicitly stated that swinger's clubs were ok because they weren't bawdy houses, but now bawdy houses are legal. Does that mean swingers can legally accept money/dinner/drinks for sex, but men aren't allowed to buy a lady at a swinger's club a drink if he wants to have sex with her (assuming a Nordic Approach law is passed)? Courts don't like ambiguity, and they'll throw out a law that isn't well-defined, which means that Stephen Harper et al will be forced to explicitly tell us what is or is not considered "sex". It's a much bigger minefield for them to walk than it was for Bill Clinton and his definition of "sexual relations" and one has to wonder what impact such a law might have on the filming and distribution of pornography. It's a no-win situation for them to even start having the conversation, so they'll stay as far away from it as possible.

I suspect that others have already said this (the thread is tl;dr) but IMHO, the best solution would be no new laws at all, just as things remain with abortion after Morgentaler. FYI, the abortion ruling also happened during a conservative government (Mulroney's PCs) and also upset a great deal of the PC base, but we remain (fortunately) devoid of criminal laws regarding abortion. The parallels are quite similar; for example, it's illegal to practise medicine without a license, and infanticide is illegal. These two laws already preclude the most appalling sides of undesired pregnancy (back-alley abortions and babies in dumpsters) and the existing laws against coercion/exploitation (via the procuring law) and sex trafficking can be said to do the same. I'm not entirely convinced that new laws are needed, and I suspect the greater concern is exploitation and non-adult coercion, which the existing laws already address. We can ask the lawmakers to "double-down" on these laws, perhaps by increasing the upper range of sentencing options for particularly nasty offenders (as opposed to mandatory minimums, which usually suck) and increasing enforcement money to fund better police work. Then, leave it to the municipalities to license and regulate (which may well be worse for us, but it's outside the federal jurisdiction and therefore outside the scope of the national discussion). Oh, and guys? Don't sweat the Nordic Approach (can we PLEASE stop calling it a "model"?) too much. The governments that have implemented it are leftist governments who draw much of their support from middle-class women, whereas the existing Conservative government draws much of its support from white, straight, affluent men (and a surprising number of recent immigrants). Don't think for a minute that they're going to risk criminalizing half the MPs in parliament by outlawing the purchase of sexual services. They'll come after us before they go after you - they'll lump some sort of law into the trafficking legislation (calling it "providing material support to sex trafficking" or some such BS) and do everything short of criminalizing sex work itself. Besides, what happens to strip clubs, swinger's clubs, registered agencies (in the cities that already regulate them), phone sex operators, camshows, and all those other things if the purchase of "sexual services" is made illegal? The governement has to clearly define what constitutes sexual services in order to make it illegal to purchase said services; do you think Stephen Harper wants to get up in the House and explain exactly what he's criminalizing? Hell no, he's going to avoid this issue like the plague, draft some wishy-washy laws, cram them into an omnibus bill at the end of a parliamentary session, and pass it in the middle of the night when he thinks nobody's watching. That's precisely what he's done on previous issues, and it's exactly what he'll do this time as well. Of course it'll be illogical; of course it'll be unconstitutional; of course it'll be stupid and overly broad and unprosecutable. But they'll do it anyways, because it's the easiest way to avoid an extended debate on the issue and we'll be back in court in 5-10 years once again. The cops will sigh, the public will shrug, and the hookers will scream bloody murder - and the status quo of consenting adults doing whatever the hell we please in the privacy of our own bedrooms will continue undisturbed. The cycle continues...

Hey guys, just arrived safe and sound in Ottawa, and I'm available until the afternoon of December 11. Check out my escort site at http://www.tgirlnikki.com if you'd like to connect while I'm in town! :)

Hey everyone, thanks for chiming in. The auction has been quite successful so far, and we even had a bit of coverage on CTV while it was going on. We're still accepting donations and bids until Saturday evening, so check out http://www.autismartauction.com, or email us at [email protected] for more details. Thanks so much for the support everyone - the auction has been very successful so far, not just in terms of raising funds (where we've already exceeded our expectations) but also by helping the people and youth with autism who have donated their work feel so good about themselves. They're able to share their creativity with the world, and they know that it goes to a good cause that's personally important to them. What could be better than that? :)

Hey guys, I just wanted to share this with you, it's a project that I was working on with a good friend of mine: www.autismartauction.com In a nutshell, her son has autism and he has been unable to receive quality services from our healthcare system, and she's been pushing for an autism crisis centre fro some time... Since she hasn't made any headway in getting the government to put up the funds for it, she decided to start fundraising to get it built privately instead. This is also a personal issue for me, since one of my brothers has Asperger's Syndrome; I wrote a piece for the Huffington Post talking about how families need to be integrated into treatment to improve outcomes for people with autism, and together, we decided to launch the 1st Annual Autism Art Auction to raise funds for the crisis centre, and couple it with an episode of Sex Brains & Money! :) The concept is that based around the fact that a lot of people with autism seem to have strong creative abilities in other areas, so we encouraged people to donate their artwork, and we would auction it off as part of the fundraising effort. So please, check out the link, watch some of the clips, and if you're so inclined, please feel free to bid on one of the many great pieces in our gallery! We also did interviews with a number of professionals who've studied autism in different capacities, and included those on the website as well. Thanks for the support everyone, this is a cause that's close to a lot of people's hearts and we really hope we can make this happen, and improve services for people with autism across the country. :)

Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Sex Brains & Money is back for another season, and I just wanted to share the segments from the last episode. You can check out past guests and previous episodes on our official website, www.sexbrainsmoney.com! Segment 1: Opening the show at our new location Segment 2: Terri-Jean Bedford reading a passage from her new book, "Bondage Bungalow Fantasies" Segment 3: Terri-Jean discussing the upcoming Supreme Court hearings Segment 4: Closing out the show and a few more words on the SCC hearings on June 12 I always enjoy getting feedback, please feel free to let me know what you think! :)

What is there to say that hasn't already been said? Clearly, Christian is courageous and amazing for being willing to put himself out there and be open and honest about his experiences. I genuinely believe that the public is finally starting to see the sex industry as inherently equal to other industries, and the more that sentiment grows, the more likely we are to remove the legal restrictions and reduce moralistic criticism. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my producers, the guys at the AllTalkTV.com Network, for being willing to produce the show for me. I'm sure that not every producer would give total creative control to an amateur host like me, but that's what they've done, and it's given me the freedom to have frank and honest discussions with all kinds of people in the business. From Terri-Jean Bedford (my very first guest) to Matt from ClubM4, as well as the lovely Cleo Catra and the courageous Christian, I'm really astounded with how well the people of the industry have represented themselves. :) It's no accident that CERB has been the primary source for interviewees, not just because of our openness, but because of our inherently-supportive community. The huge amount of praise for Christian's and Cleo's interviews has been 100% positive, and I have no doubt that this was part of what inspired Cleo and Christian to be honest in these segments. The knowledge that they would be supported likely made it easier to be themselves during the interviews, which is a critical aspect in our attempts to create an authentic and genuine representation of the business. I guess what I'm trying to say is this - while Cleo and Christian took the brave step of going public about their involvement in the industry, I doubt they would have been comfortable enough to even consider it without the whole CERB community ready to rally behind them. In a way, though they're the true stars of the show, it's the positive and supportive audience that really made it happen. :) Thanks for being awesome, CERB - this couldn't have happened without you.

When a client comes to visit me, I always insist that he shower before anything serious happens, and while he's in the bathroom, I tell him to hang his clothes on the hooks on the back of the door. If he leaves anything in the living room (such as his phone or wallet) I ask him to bring everything into the bathroom with him, and leave it on the counter or in his pockets. When he emerges from the bathroom wearing nothing more than a towel, I'm already in the bedroom waiting for him, and for the duration of the session, I never enter the bathroom until after he's showered and left. Simply put, I will never allow myself to be in any situation where I can be accused of theft. Nobody has ever suggested this, but I make sure that it's flat-out impossible for someone to make such an accusation. By ensuring I'm never alone with the gentleman's things, and ensuring he's put his belongings in a place where he can retrieve them immediately, I never have to be concerned about any awkward situations, and more importantly, I make sure that no gentleman ever forgets any of his belongings at my place. Whether it's a phone, wallet or wedding ring, if you brought it with you, then you're leaving with it - no exceptions. Sadly, the stereotypes of both clients and sex workers only serve to harm our interactions, and often place us in a position where trust is limited and suspicion is common. How ironic that an interaction requiring such a deep amount of discretion and trust on one level, is so lacking on another... Simply put, I use this method to ensure there's no way for anyone to ever suspect me of bad behaviour, just by ensuring there's never any opportunity. Much like Cat's use of her little box, my bathroom hooks give both my clients and myself the peace of mind of knowing we're both here for the right reasons, and any concerns we might have regarding each other's honesty are eliminated before they can arise. :)

Hey Cleo, I'm so glad you had fun, and I think you did a wonderful job as an interviewee... I can honestly say that it's one of the best segments I've ever had on the show, and I've heard from quite a few people who think it's the best interview we've ever done on Sex Brains & Money. I've always said that, if people knew what the sex industry was really like, there wouldn't be nearly as much stigma and the stereotypes wouldn't be nearly so pervasive. That's part of the reason I wanted to start the show in the first place, and I'm really happy that you were able to share a different perspective on what being a sex worker is all about. Just a little confession - you looked so hot during the segment that I almost forgot the questions at least a couple of times, and I had trouble keeping the proper distance! ;) Luckily my professionalism helped me overcome my naughtier thoughts, otherwise it would have ended up being a very different kind of video! :p For everyone who checked out the segment, and commented on this thread, thank you so much for your positive feedback - I'm really looking forward to doing more segments like this in the future, perhaps with other SPs who'd like to join me as well. Also, if there are any clients who are feeling particularly bold, and might want to join me for a segment, let me know! I'd love the chance to help the public realize that stereotypes about clients are just as false as those about sex workers, and I think it would make for a really great interview to talk about why you enjoy seeing these lovely ladies. Just a thought, anyways. :) Thanks again everyone, and if you'd like to know more about the show, check out www.sexbrainsmoney.com for all the details, and all the other segments as well. :)

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/news/en/item/4118/index.do The SCC will decide whether they're going to hear the government's appeal on the S.210 and S.212(j) laws, as well as the cross-appeal launched by the applicants on S.212(j) and S.213©. Details coming soon!