Phaedrus

Yes, I know. I'm just saying that I think your analogy is completely inappropriate. Sorry, you've lost me. How is an advertizing service like a Ponzi scheme? I don't get that at all.

How can they possibly not realize they're doing it? If you touch your cellphone during an appointment, that's unacceptable. Period. I've only ever had it happen once. But, obviously, I've never seen her since. No second chances on crap like that.

Wrong. It's been in Toronto for over a year now. http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/01/10/antibiotic-resistant-gonorrhea-has-reached-north-america-for-the-first-time-ontario-mds/ And given it's been in Toronto for over a year, I'd be amazed if it hadn't spread.

They wouldn't be able to stop you advertizing your Ponzi scheme (unless it was also illegal in Nicaragua). They'd still be able to get you for running it. However, I think that's a really bad analogy. I'm not aware that there's any law against merely advertizing a Ponzi scheme, or against buying into one... what's illegal is running one. Sex work would be in completely the opposite situation... legal to sell, illegal to advertize or buy. Although reading Savannah's posts, it sounds like the advertizing thing may not apply to independent workers.

Sorry to hear that... but in the absolute worst-case scenario, you still have a few months to teach her enough that she can fly solo. And as I said, I don't think the worst will happen.

A few initial thoughts on this. Full disclosure: I've read Pivot's analysis of it, but not the bill itself (I've scanned the bill, and it's basically impossible to follow unless you're already familiar with existing legislation). Anyway... ...yes, it's bad, but I see no reason to panic. The sky is not falling, despite the government's wish to drop it on us. As Gia noted, this is not a final bill; it's an opening bid in a political process. Some provisions in there will be things the government really wants to make happen, but some will be stuff that's there purely to be negotiated away so that the government can claim they're being reasonable. Yes, the government has a majority... but negotiations will still take place and compromises will happen. An aside: given the government's current relations with the SCC, I can't help but wonder how much of this is less about sex work than Harper just wanting to deliver a solid "Fuck you" to the court. Obviously sex workers and their clients are just collateral damage here... On communication: it still talks about "any place", and the Internet (including email) is still not a "place". On advertizing: does the law prevent the hosting of ads, or just the placing of them? The former is completely unenforceable; contrary to what some others have said in this thread, anything outside of Canada is beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, as are any servers physically located in another country and run by a non-Canadian company. So, to pick three more enlightened countries at random: if we set up cerb.de, hosted on servers in New Zealand by an Australian company, the courts here are powerless. And for those who disagree with me on that... think for a moment about Wikileaks. Think about Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, and what they've published between them. Think about the stuff they've put online, and how much it has pissed off the most powerful and technologically advanced nation in the world... and on a subject far more important to The Powers That Be than sex work could ever become. Can they stop it? Can they shut those people down? Of course not, or they would have already done so. Given that, do you really think the Canadian government will be able to kill a board like this if it's hosted abroad, even if they were foolish enough to try? Now, if the placing of an ad is a crime... well, that's enforceable. But will LE have the resources and inclination to actually enforce it? Maybe, but that depends on the LE in question. And that only applies if ads stay the way they are today... if advertizing sexual services is illegal, then we simply do what's already common in the US: "Money exchanged is for time and companionship only (nudge, wink)." Problem solved: no sex advertized, no law broken. On the idea that this bill could kill the industry in Canada: well, I'm sure the government would love that to happen. But, really... look south. Even if this bill passed as written, the legal environment for sex work would still be less oppressive than that which exists in most of the US. Tell me, doom-mongers, are there no sex workers in the US? Are there no clients? And, bearing in mind the answers to those two questions, do you honestly think the industry will die here? It's called the Oldest Profession for a reason, and it's survived worse than this. Now, that's not to say there will be no effect at all. We may end up with a more US-like situation where providers have to be more careful about screening clients, and clients will have to be more careful about which ads they respond to, and newcomers on both sides of the fence will probably find it harder to get established. Some clients and providers may well be scared out of the industry, and it may decline in size as a result. But it will continue; I have no doubt about that. My gut feeling is that enforcement of whatever finally becomes law will, as today, be mostly aimed at street workers and their clients. Let's face it, this is about politics, and what drives politics is public opinion... and what drives public opinion is what the public sees. The man in the street probably doesn't know that the nice lady in the apartment upstairs is a sex worker, and therefore he won't complain to either LE or his MP about her; he's going to complain about the lady in the short skirt on a street corner, never mind the fact that she's just a random person meeting a friend for a night out and not a sex worker at all. Finally: as many have noted, this is all obviously going to be struck down by the SCC on the same grounds as last time, provided we can get plaintiffs for a test-case (or maybe two; it strikes me you'd need one case for the laws aimed at clients, and one for the laws aimed at providers). Sure, most people won't want the publicity... but it only needs one or two courageous and determined individuals. And a decade.

They know that. They also know that any legal challenge to the laws will take a decade, more or less, before the SCC rules on it... by which time it'll be someone else's problem. This isn't an effort to solve any problems. It's just kicking the can down the road.

Well, the survey was... interesting. They start with an overview of the legal models relating to sex work, but unaccountably omit the one that exists in Canada at the moment. They consider all responses to be received from Canadian individuals, unless the response self-identifies as being from a foreigner or a group. They make no mention of the possibility of duplicate responses. I really can't see the point of this. The problems with the survey are so bad as to make it meaningless. It doesn't even look like it's been properly rigged to ensure the "right" answer. I don't honestly think it has any purpose other than its own existence, so that the government can say, "Look! We did a survey!" IANAL, but I don't see the point, yet. There's no legislation even officially proposed, never mind far enough through the process that we can really see what it'll look like. And so there's still nothing concrete that your lawyer can give you advice about.

An awesome tumblr full of headlines that writers didn't dare use. http://hedswillroll.tumblr.com/

Bear traps. They'll fix the problem soon enough.

Private communication is not subject to any law, and you can say what you please. It is, however, subject to the laws of common sense and common courtesy. If you're worried about things... I'd suggest reading the ads for whoever you want to see, and reading their reco thread. There are lots of providers here who... well they won't give you what you bargained for; they'll give you a whole lot more :) If you're concerned about anything in particular, you can always ask... just read the lady's ads/website first to see if the information's already there, be polite when you ask, and don't argue if the answer's "no".

There's been threads on hotels in the Ottawa section before, e.g. here and here. There are probably others, but I didn't search that hard...

This reminds me of a guy I once met. His name was Stone Wang. Er... that's it. Apologies for the hijack. And no, I don't know, so don't ask :)

I wanted wings. So I covered the road in hot sauce, which not only tastes good but is sticky, thus making the chicken easier to catch.

Awesome job, sir! Congratulations, and looking forward to many more.

Dancers who take not being able to count to new and ridiculous heights. I can deal with adding the odd song, but two songs becoming... six? Ferfucksake...

The World Bodypainting Festival http://www.bodypainting-festival.com/en/ Some spectacular pics and vids there.

I think this is absolutely true. I think a SP is far less likely to ask, "So when are you going to leave her for me?" The boundaries imposed by a professional relationship are hugely important. It's something that annoys me slightly in all the various bits of journalism on sex work that I see... nobody ever seems to ask how many marriages SPs save.

Okay, I'll admit it: you've got me. I have no idea whether this is sarcastic or not.

FWIW, some related thoughts in this thread.

Ah... I'm late! Glad you had a fantastic day!