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!

Lol, I'll vouch for that - your antler is definitely too big for most towels, especially when you're eager and excited. ;) I always recommend that my visitors hang their clothes on the back of the bathroom door, so they don't get wrinkled or messed up... and that way, they're right there waiting for you when you head back to the shower before making your way home. Seems to work pretty well. :)

Lol, I had no idea this thread was going around, I really don't check CERB very often except when I'm travelling to Ottawa or Halifax... anyways, I'm glad to be the inspiration for this thread, and I appreciate the kind words that so many of you have said about me. <3 Truth is, I'm extraordinarily lucky in a lot of ways, and I'm always accepted as female without any reservations or questions. I have friends, colleagues, and professors that I've known for years who haven't the slightest clue as to my medical history. Frankly, unless they're going to see me naked, I don't think it's necessary to share the intimate details of my past, so in my day-to-day life (and my activism for the most part) I simply don't bring it up. It's really only relevant to those that I plan to sleep with, and I find it can often become a distraction that takes away from the other issues in the discussion. My anatomy isn't the least bit relevant in regards to my belief that sex work should be entirely decriminalized, and when I talk about the topic in public forums, I'd rather the focus remain on the laws themselves. In terms of my own identity and how I perceive myself, I consider myself a woman first and foremost, with "tgirl" as a subordinate category under the superordinate category of "female". I think of tgirl as a similar term to "lesbian", insofar as both terms refer to a woman of a particular alignment or persuasion, but both fall under the broader category of woman. I really don't like the term "shemale", though, because that's usually meant to mean a person of a "third gender," who identifies as neither male nor female, but somewhere in between. I know that some people use this term to refer to themselves and I certainly respect their right to do so, but it's never felt like the right term for me, and I don't use it to describe myself in any way, shape or form. I'm just a girl with a unique anatomy and unique history, in a unique location on the amazingly-diverse spectrum of sexuality. As for surgery, I think of that as a private issue that I don't really discuss publicly, although I'll go as far to say that it's definitely on my TDL, as soon as the time is right. But in my personal and public life, I'm already accepted as the person I know myself to be, and that's a lot more important to me than my current anatomy. I'm also legally female in every respect, having changed my name and all forms of ID quite some time ago. Fortunately, I don't experience systemic discrimination due to my status, although that's unfortunately not the case for many of my trans friends. As a provider, it's extremely important that all my potential clients are aware of my services before making an appointment, because it's not fair to expect them to have a complete grasp of all the different terminology within the industry. I would feel bad if someone's lack of awareness led them to arrange an appointment where they're expecting a certain service, but not able to enjoy it. I think that's something that all providers should make a priority when arranging a get-together, just for ethical reasons, but for me, it's a safety issue as well. I've been fortunate that none of my unaware clients have ever reacted violently or negatively, but I know it's happened to others who aren't so diligent when making arrangements - and sadly, the law often gives a free pass to those who commit violent acts, and tends to blame the trans person for supposedly acting in a deceptive manner. :( Anyways, I hope that some of what I've written makes sense, and I'm happy to have been the inspiration of this discussion. From the posts above, it seems that at least a few people have expanded their horizons through this post, or at least learned a few new words and won't be likely to experience any unexpected "surprises." ;) Given that my long-term goal is to decrease the stigma experienced by sex workers, I truly feel that providers who are honest about their services and genuine in their approach can only help society view us in a more positive light. By trying to avoid misconceptions, I'm just doing my own little part to make that goal a reality someday, and I love how CERB has so many providers and clients who are doing their part as well. :)

From the SCC's website: It's basically a 30-day window for them to decide whether they will issue an unlimited stay (which would keep the laws in place until the SCC issues its final judgment) or a shorter stay, in hopes of expediting the hearings (which the OCA did in November 2010). This assumes that the SCC agrees to hear the case, which we fully expect it will. I can't say for certain, but the "relatively short period of time" comment suggests that a blanket stay is by no means inevitable. The Crown will argue that no one will be harmed by extending the stay, but as Alan Young will argue, we will continue to be vulnerable while this law remains on the books, because we will be prevented from taking the most basic steps to ensure our security. Given that the challenge was successful because it used a Section 7 (Security of the Person) argument to show the laws were unconstitutional, it's a strange position for the government to take. The courts ruled that our security is significantly compromised by these laws, and yet the Crown will argue that our security will not be compromised by maintaining the status quo. I personally think that it's just one of many procedural delays that the government will use to try to delay the hearings, and by extension, the eventual judgment. They waited until the last possible moment to apply for this extension (much to Alan Young's chagrin, because he had to quickly juggle his schedule around so he could attend the hearing in Ottawa) and they have shown a huge lack of professional courtesy throughout the proceedings. The only silver lining in all this is that the laws are essentially unprosecutable, in that nobody who is charged with a violation will actually stand trial until the matter is settled by the SCC. You can still be arrested and charged (and, if it's a Bawdy House charge, have all your belongings seized) but there's not a trial judge in Canada who will actually hear your case until the matter is resolved. So, for what it's worth, at least we're not looking at jail time for running an incall anymore.

Just a quick note that the SCC has agreed to extend the stay on the striking down of the Living on the Avails - S.212(j) - provision for an additional 30 days. It seems increasingly likely the SCC will agree to hear the case, and from what I've heard, the government will drag their heels on this one, and will take their sweet time allowing it to be heard. One rumour I've heard is that Harper is terrified this will become an election issue, given the wide gap between public opinion (the large majority whe now favour decriminalization) and his party's social conservative base (who do not). If they have their way, the final judgment won't come down for at least three years. In other words, if you were hoping for a quick resolution to this issue, don't hold your breath. On the bright side, at least this gives us lots of time to start developing dialogue with the municipal governments, in hopes of avoiding overly-restrictive bylaws for when sex work is finally decriminalized - something we've already started doing. Fingers crossed and stay tuned!

Hey everyone, I've just received word that we'll be receiving the decision on the Bedford et al case from the Ontario Court of Appeal on Monday, March 26 at 9am. Stay tuned for more details, and fingers crossed!

I've been lucky enough to enjoy a couple of duos during my visits to Halifax, and it looks like I'm going to enjoy another one when I get there next week... I'm going to be a bit cryptic right now and let you use your imagination, but if any local girls have a client who's interested in having a tgirl join in the fun, send me an email and let me know - trust me, with an MFT duo, the possibilities are almost endless! ;)

I've been out there a few times, and in addition to the natural beauty (which is outstanding, especially the National Park) there's really something to be said for the "East-Coast Hospitality". I'm not from there myself, but one of my stepparents is originally from Chicoutimi, so whenever I visit, I'm automatically considered family, with all the kindness and hospitality that entails (even though I'm not technically related to anyone there). It's just a completely different mentality than what we're used to in the cities. Everyone is part of the community, everyone looks out for each other, and they support each other when times are tough. They're also some of the kindest, most trusting people I've ever met, and during my last visit, I was able to introduce one of my friends to a way of life that she never even knew existed. We were staying with my aunt, and went outside to get some things from our car. My aunt's jeep was sitting in the driveway, with the doors unlocked as they usually are (people in Cape Breton don't lock their doors if they don't have to, and that goes for their homes as well). My friend looked at me with a concerned look on her face, and said, "Shouldn't we tell your aunt that her doors are unlocked?" I smiled, and motioned towards the interior of the car, and she took a closer look - to see that the keys were dangling in the ignition! :icon_mrgreen: I haven't been there for a couple of years, and I think I'm long overdue for a visit. I've been to Halifax a few times on tour, maybe during my next visit I'll have to extend my trip for a few days, to make sure I have time to go back! Long story short, if you're interested in natural beauty and enjoying the company of some really great people, you can't go wrong with Cape Breton. :)

You're absolutely right about this, and I don't see it as a judgment, but more of a commentary. People today are communicating in ways that we could never have imagined, and it's actually having a greater effect on us than we realize. I'd suggest the age divide is more for people under 30, but I guess there's some variation there; I'm sort of on the cusp of this phenomenon. When I was growing up, I didn't play video games too often; I had a computer (Apple IIC) when I was quite young, but I didn't spend 10 hours a day using it. Most importantly, I learned how to socialize before computers and cell phones became so popular; it wasn't until my late teens that these tools became the status quo for communication. Now, when I have classes with people more than 5 years younger than me, I can notice a serious difference between those of us who learned to socialize normally, versus those who grew up with computer-mediated communication (CMC) being the norm. There's not just a behavioural difference between groups, but a neurological difference as well. Sadly, these tools actually get in the way of how our brain processes communcation messages. You know the saying that 90% of communication is non-verbal? It's totally true. Our brains process communication holistically, and we consider all the information (verbal and non-verbal) when evaluating someone's message - but modern communication (emails and texts) eliminate some of the most important bits of information that we have depended on throughout our evolutionary history, such as facial expressions, affirmative nods, and body language. Quite simply, kids who grow up using computers and cell phones have brains that are wired differently, and they pay more attention to the details than the bigger picture. Some of the effects showing up in research include: - Considerably shorter attention spans - Desensitization to visual stimuli - Decreased working memory ability - Poorer calculation skills (most likely a consequence of the calculator) - Difficulty in face-to-face communication (lack of eye contact in particular, as well as decreased sensitivity to facial expressions indicating emotional changes) - Limited and decreased empathy for others (because the empathy mechanism in our brain is closely wired to our facial recognition and processing centres) - And, most problematic, a complete inability to delay gratification, and a major lack in self-discipline. At the neurological level, we're actually looking at a potential crisis of massive proportions, so it's not unreasonable to say that this generation gap and communication divide makes people feel more or less connected to other people. Even though we're more "connected" to each other in a technological sense, we've actually never been more alone, as far as our brains being able to connect and identify with other people. The good news is, this isn't the end of the line. Returning to normal, face-to-face communication is one way to increase your ability to connect with others, and having meaningful contact with other people has been shown to increase empathy and decrease feelings of loneliness and isolation. Also, it's actually pretty easy to develop self-discipline; all it takes is a couple of marshmallows to teach your kids how to exercise self-control. Check this out for more details:

When I saw this thread, I wasn't sure which one it was referring to. But I like them both, so I figure I couldn't lose by clicking on it. ;)

I don't think that any judge ever intended to absolve drunken people of their criminal actions; the only real question is whether it's considered an acceptable defense for violent crimes, and whether one's constitutionally-protected right to legal defense should include the right to argue for an acquittal on the grounds of non-insane automatism, when charged with a violent crime. To be convicted of a crime in Canada, the prosecution must prove both actus rea (evil act) and mens rea (evil intent). In cases of automatism, the defense claims that there could be no mens rea, since the accused was unaware of their actions, and therefore, a conviction would be inappropriate. The automatism defense has been used successfully, most notably in R. v. Parks (1992), where the defendent claimed to have been sleepwalking when he got up in the middle of the night, got dressed, drove to his parents' house, and stabbed his stepmother and father, killing her and putting him in the hospital with serious injuries. He was acquitted by the jury, who accepted evidence from his psychiatrist that he was unaware of his actions when he attacked his parents. Therefore, he lacked the mens rea required for a conviction, and the acquittal was upheld on appeal. The case of R. v. Daviault, as mentioned above, permitted the accused's lawyer to argue for an automatism defense, and a new trial was ordered (I'm having trouble finding out if he was tried again, or if the Crown elected not to re-try the case). Parliament responded with Bill C-72 in 1995, which included the text that is now cited in S 33.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Subsequently, the case of R. v. Stone (1999) differentiated automatism into two types - insane automatism (where a pre-existing mental disorder leads to automatism) and non-insane automatism (where it is induced by an external source, such as a blow to the head, hypoglycemia, or in cases like these, voluntary intoxication). The difference is important; a successful defense on the grounds of insane automatism, leads to a verdict of NCRMD (Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder), in which case the defendant is referred to a psychiatric review board for evaluation and treatment. In cases of non-insane automatism, the verdict is not guilty, meaning the defendant is free to go. So, the issue is not whether drunks should not be held responsible for violent crimes. The only real question is whether the presiding justice (and in applicable cases, the jury) can legally consider the possibility of non-insane automatism due to excessive alcohol consumption. As the law stands now, they're not supposed to even consider it for cases involving violence, even though it's an accepted defense for non-violent crimes. The judge/jury certainly doesn't have to accept these arguments when making their ruling, but the defendant should have the constitutional right to use this as a defense if they so choose. As the writer mentions, even when the justice accepts that the preclusion is unconstitutional, they still tend to reject the argument, and most people who challenge it on constitutional grounds - even successfully - still get convicted of their crimes. They can try to claim a lack of mens rea, in hopes that the judge agrees - but in the vast majority of cases, they're still held responsible for their actions.