PatrickGC

Before the world ends, I would like to give appreciation to, and say "thank you" to all those who have got me this far in life. It has been a remarkable ride. Perhaps even more so because I was encouraged to take the nonstandard route, rather than the usual straight and narrow road. After all, what is life without diversity? PatrickGC

Welcome to the community Aletheia! You'll find quite a wide range of fully engaged members here, who speak up and speak out about what affects us all. In the years I've been here the level of discussion has really blown me away. All the best as your amazing adventure begins! And feel free to ask questions because people who really know the answers are fellow members. PatrickGC

David Bowie always seemed to put sincerity first. Both in interviews and personal choices. A career that was unique and wide ranging from the very beginning. He pushed the social boundaries in a way which encouraged exploration and communication among people. He made it OK for people to step out of the norm during some pretty conservative times. How many creative souls took root because of his inspiration? We really need to acknowledge the creative souls in each of our lives and reciprocate in some way, because all too often, the creative life is a short one. PatrickGC

This short 10 minute video is an absolute must see. Created by Peers Victoria and sex workers rights group it features cameos not only from well-known activists but from the Chief Constable of Victoria, Frank Elsner. In a media normally full of negative messages, this is simply brimming with, wisdom, compassion, and dignity. PatrickGC PS: You simply must watch the final segment, a marvelous little rap :-)

Wow, what a tremendously uplifting response. I must apologize for not being online much. This issue notwithstanding, bureaucracy and and the energy put in to daily life have taken, momentarily, a little out of me. The reporters need to be acknowledged and congratulated Nick Purdon and Leonardo Palleja. They kept the focus on attitudes and stigma, asking the question: [paraphrased] "Are our attitudes causing harm?" Nailing the issue right on the head, and getting people to look deeper into their societal beliefs. The most amazing thing is that all the responses from people I don't know here in Vancouver have been positive! A day after the segment aired a man stopped me on the street, vigorously shook my hand, and said: "Thank you so much!". Similar things have happened since then. Now I know that my own stereotype [physical disability] affords me a bit of a shield-a side effect of political correctness-but from what I have seen the new legislation has very little support from everyday people. Nor has there been any political rumbling relating to this video from the health care system. By the way: that does not mean our healthcare system is in good shape. In Vancouver over the last month or so, there have been massive cuts, and I mean massive, to home care support systems. Many disabled and elderly getting slashed down to an hour or less a week. It would take several posts, long ones at that to fill you in on all the details. Suffice it to say: There must be a change in B.C. politics and Harper's gotta go! I will be trying to catch up with everyone over the next week! PatrickGC

Happy Birthday Meaghan! Hope your day was AWESOME! PatrickGC

Hello HavingaLook: Welcome aboard to Lyla! As Ice4fun said, do your research and stay with well-established people. You may be interested the "FIRST Advocates" mailing list. It distributes articles and research about this industry from across the world. Subscribers run the gamut from researchers to activists. Please note this is a serious mailing list which is moderated and a first step is being approved to get on the list itself. Chances are very good at anything to do with the new law will appear here first. Here is the link for further information: http://www.firstadvocates.org/?q=about PatrickGC

Hello GrassHopper et al. Here's an old-school trick which might help in the future and actually works on, most if not all, operating systems. "The hosts file" is part of every computer and, now days, is used as a blacklist of known bad sites and servers. It is checked before the computer tries to go to a site on the Internet. So if an address matches in the list you will simply get a "server cannot be found" message or an empty window. This also stops bad software from contacting home to download more offensive ads or viruses. This file exists in different locations depending on the kind of computer you have. [eg. Windows, Mac, or Linux] and the normal approach is to use free add-on software which updates the file periodically. As you can imagine the hosts file size can become huge and may slow down computers that are older than six years. However most software allows you to limit the size of the file. Without further adieu, here's a link covering most of the free software out there and complete background on how the hosts file works. Please do not be intimidated by the Geekyness of this page. Detailed information is at the top with the software near the bottom. Hosts File software. (a.k.a There's no place like 127.0.0.1) PatrickGC

This discussion is heading toward the root of the matter. What must change in the public's mind is what comprises the makeup of a client and what is acceptable behavior. Just as certain galleries except artwork only on the highest caliber from clients who can meet their standards. This is how the definition of "client" much change for this industry. Making it clear that there is an expectation of etiquette, awareness and decency which the prospective client must meet. Abuse of any kind would not be tolerated and would be a source of shame for the client. In other words, clients would have to meet standards. However it seems to me, that in the modern world, we are moving in the other direction. Where every bazaar impulse is being glorified. Just look at the media and the number of reality TV shows. This is actually why I started this thread, because I hope the industry and community through dialogue can affect in a positive way this trend. Good clients out there should help mentor society to change in their beliefs.... there's a thought. A client mentorship program. Not based on shame, but rather, cultivating the best human standards. Good guys, we need you to come out of the closet, to help change the experience for everyone. PatrickGC

[B][SIZE=3]Pivot Legal Society[/SIZE] [/B] [B]ARTICLE LINK: [URL]http://www.pivotlegal.org/with_no_reference_in_ontario_sex_workers_must_look_to_litigation_again[/URL][/B] [B]Written by Brenda Belak on April 02, 2015 [/B] When I heard yesterdayâ??s announcement that the Ontario Attorney General found [URL="https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ontario-review-federal-prostitution-law-finds-constitutional-premier-144733178.html"]Canadaâ??s new prostitution laws â??not clearly unconstitutional,â?[/URL] I almost thought it was an April Foolâ??s Day joke. Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said publicly in December that she had [URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/kathleen-wynne-has-grave-concern-about-new-prostitution-laws-1.2863639"]â??grave concernsâ? about the constitutionality[/URL] of the [I]Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act[/I], which had just come into force. These concerns were not surprising; PCEPA replicates the harms of the Criminal Code provisions it replaced. Premier Wynne requested that Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur review the PCEPA to determine whether it should be the subject of a constitutional reference. News yesterday of Ontarioâ??s decision not to take this route makes it more certain that sex workers and their allies will have to pursue litigation to challenge the new laws. Litigation would have been less of a certainty if the reference had gone ahead. Constitutional references are procedures that can make litigation brought by private individuals unnecessary. They allow governments to ask the courts directly whether proposed or existing laws meet constitutional muster, avoiding the time and expense of a full trial. While Canada has used references for guidance on some of our most contentious legal issues (including the [URL="http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/1997/scc-rules-against-nadon-appointment.html"]proposed appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court[/URL] and the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_Same-Sex_Marriage"]legality of same sex marriage[/URL]), they are still uncommon. With the exception of B.C., in most provinces references must be heard by the appeal courts; Ontarioâ??s reference would have gone to the Ontario Court of Appeal. If the Ontario reference had proceeded, Pivot Legal Society would have applied to intervene to ensure that sex workersâ?? voices were heard by the Court and to argue that the new law puts them at risk of the same harms as the provisions struck down in [I]Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford[/I]. Even so, the Ontario Court of Appeal may not have had a robust evidentiary record of the lawâ??s impacts like the one before the Supreme Court of Canada in [I]Bedford[/I]. The intentionally streamlined processes in reference cases are similar to appeals, in that they restrict what can be put before the court for consideration. In most cases, lawyers for intervenors can present their written arguments and evidence, but they cannot call or cross-examine witnesses. Because of this, it was uncertain how much space would be available for sex workersâ?? voices and evidence in a reference, despite the reality that sex workers are most directly impacted by the law. It is worth noting that the Attorney General did not consult with sex workersâ?? or human rights organizations while drafting her opinion, even though many sex workersâ?? organizations were eager to provide their expertise and information. Pivot Legal Society does not agree with the Attorney Generalâ??s conclusion on PCEPA. We believe [URL="http://www.pivotlegal.org/reckless_endangerment_q_a_on_bill_c_36"]the laws [I][COLOR=blue]are [/COLOR][/I]clearly unconstitutional[/URL]: they recreate the harms of the old Criminal Code provisions in a different format, and it is our view that they violate the security of the person, liberty, expression, and equality rights of sex workers. The Supreme Court of Canada in [I]Bedford [/I][URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-canada-s-prostitution-laws-1.2471572"]struck down the provisions[/URL] that outlawed communication for the purpose of prostitution, the keeping of a bawdy house (any indoor establishment offering sexual services), and living off the avails of prostitution. The Court found the laws forced sex workers into unsafe outdoor locations and prevented them from engaging in safety precautions, violating their rights to security of the person under the [I]Charter of Rights and Freedoms[/I]. The Court also found that working indoors could enhance sex workersâ?? safety. The PCEPA makes the purchase of sex illegal. It also modifies the communication provision only marginally, making communication to purchase sexual services illegal in any place (private or public), and communication to sell sexual services illegal if it happens near a daycare, school, or playground. As a result of these provisions, sex workers will still face the same pressure to rush or forego screening clients. The PCEPA still makes it virtually impossible for sex workers to work indoors by banning the purchase of sexual services, advertising of sexual services, and material benefits to third parties, including (in many or most cases) drivers, receptionists, and bodyguards. Like the old provisions, the new provisions will make all sex workers reticent to access police services if they face violence. Not only does the PCEPA reproduce the [I]Charter [/I]violations we saw before, we believe that it contravenes [I]Charter[/I] guarantees of freedom of expression and equality. Ontarioâ??s decision on a reference means our next steps are becoming clearer. Without a more direct course to striking down this legislation, sex workers are once again faced with the prospect of heading to court. [FONT="]Over the coming months, we will be meeting with our clients, Sex Workers United Against Violence, and other sex workers' organizations across Canada to hear their concerns and strategize about the best way to bring the next constitutional challenge forward. The complexity of the new law means a great many decisions will need to be made. What know now is that sex workers are determined to fight the PCEPA and to fight for their rights, even if that means having to go to the Supreme Court of Canada once again in order to have those rights protected[/FONT]

Mistert you nailed it . The media often comes in with an agenda which is simply to sell more airtime or paper and to then ended and they can absolutely butcher an interview. One trick I learned is not to allow them to use buzzwords. In interviews I use my full name and insist that in the very least my first name is used. My favorite tagline is "it's all about people's dignity and humanity". But why it can be difficult to survive the cutting room floor. Especially when one considers any agreement to sign gives them free rein. However those of us that can must keep articulating the message that it is about the people, humanity, and dignity. Midnite-Energies's point cannot be understated No law or action stays in a vacuum. It has already affected advertising and will affect future decision-making in a negative way if left unchallenged. Just a few years ago who would ever think that this site would have to adopt a blacklist of words? This is the classic "slippery slope". Not everyone can fight politically or afford to lay everything on the line. But we all have friends who we can influence, and they in turn can influence us back. That's the ticket-to be engaged and not just wait for someone else to make the right choice. Regardless of the issue. PatrickGC

Phaedrus, excellently articulated and accurate points. I recently spoke with the reporter from the CBC National who is preparing a news item on the effects of the new law on escorts. During the initial investigation it was noticed that clients are tremendously underrepresented in the discussions, articles, and media. So indeed, the "supertanker" is slowly turning. I heard about this because I'm involved with the activists and I'm willing to speak out.-if anyone would like this information, just p.m. me and I'll pass it along. At this point I don't know when or if the news story will make it to air and the reporter is to be commended for trying to get perspectives from the client's perspective. Apologies for the short reply. My voice dictation software is acting up. PatrickGC Additional Comments: Agreed FunAdventures blindly legalizing the industry with a history such as ours would be disastrous. However, the goal is to make violence unacceptable and in this context that means "anything against any person's will". As the situation stands now people can not protect themselves because they are now literally farther from being legal and law. Criminals love this, because criminals don't obey the law, by definition, unless it in their favor. This is something bureaucracy just doesn't seem to understand: The Law Only Works On Those Who Acknowledge And Obey It. That's why the current law affects the people here and not the ass holes on the outside. And those same "lovely individuals" usually have access to unencumbered physical resources and the occasional lawyer or two. However if the industry was legalized responsibly, pressure could be brought to bear. I realize that for this to really work it takes a fundamental shift in society. Usually that takes a long time, but not always, nevertheless it must sought after. Because what ever society deems as acceptable behavior has ripple effects of crossed all facets of life. This industry must evolve and be governed by dignity, standards and a code of ethics. Right now some segments of the society aren't concerned enough when someone is harmed or disappears. Apologies for my rant. But the industry and people should be part of the mainstream. Or at least closer to it. PatrickGC A Side Note to lighten things up a little bit: Soon after the new law was enacted an official request was sent to revenue Canada to exempt all working individuals in this industry from income tax. Since any moneys received by way of any transaction under the new law are to be considered obtained by way of extortion. To date revenue Canada has not responded. [if I can find the original article I will post it here.]

In need Phaedrus! People often don't realize just how much sensitivity and awareness is involved in this profession. The ability to read and understand the emotional needs of the person cannot be understated. I can personally testify that I have met some of the most sensitive and aware people who are in this line of work. They have made a tremendous difference in my life. As a matter of fact, and in all seriousness, the rest of the health-care system could take serious lessons from the people in this industry. As you pointed out, "these are very different skills" than the ones normally perceived by people. In modern-day health-care these same skills are being lost, in the name of being efficient, and that really worries me. Yet there is cause for hope: A friend of mine, who switched from this industry to traditional health care support, so impressed the instructors with their awareness and sensitivity toward patients on both the physical and emotional levels, that they were honored with an award by the health-care institution before they had even finished their practicum and were hired right off the bat. So there are people out there in the general public who really do understand these skills. There is real warmth in humanity here which needs to be acknowledged publicly and embraced by society. I feel very honored to have met the people I have. At the end of the day I'm pretty damn lucky and I will do what I can to ensure that everyone has their day in the sun and will continue to act, and speak out against the current unjust bill etc. Sorry, I became a little revved up about the issues again. I shall now climb down off my soapbox. But this industry is valid and the people in it need to be acknowledged on all levels. PatrickGC

Happy birthday Roaming Guy :) May your day hold many marvelous adventures. Some of which you can tell all about. Take care and all the best! PatrickGC

A quick note of explanation: This post started as a reply to another thread regarding a rating area or scheme for clientele.(Here,) As I posed my two alternate questions it occurred to me it might better stand on its own as a separate thread because it really does concern societal standards. Yes indeed, this idea has been spun in various flavors quite a few times before, both here and at other places on the Internet. The questions I would like to see posted to the public in the media is: How does society expect a client to behave in this industry? And, if that standard differs from social norms, what is the reason for the variance? The following is my opinion: I am willing to bet my last dollar that the above questions would expose both a debate in the public media and a massive double standard for those in this industry, on both the provider and client-side. This negative inequality is perpetuated by bureaucracies in order to further justify other inequalities in our society... and on it goes. But answering the above two questions openly in public discussion might help began to turn the tide. I know I will live to see this industry and all those involved given back their rights, and I hope to see other major positive humanitarian changes in my lifetime is well. PatrickGC