Megan'sTouch 23875 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 Did you know that Operation Red Nose discriminates against sex workers from their volunteers? If you have a charge for prostitution, you are banned from volunteering. Interestingly, if you have a charge for dangerous driving or driving under the influence, they will still consider your application!!! Read it here: http://operationnezrouge.com/en/documents/ottawa-form.pdf 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gabriella Laurence 301887 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 Thanks Megan! When I decided to include the Red Nose Operation banner along with a link to their website in my signature it was simply to remind people that they have alternatives to drinking and driving during the holiday season. I also chose this particular service because it is available in multiple cities across Canada. Cheers everyone and don't drink and drive! Gabriella xox 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roger dodger 2160 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 Did you know that Operation Red Nose discriminates against sex workers from their volunteers? If you have a charge for prostitution' date=' you are banned from volunteering. Interestingly, if you have a charge for dangerous driving or driving under the influence, they will still consider your application!!! Read it here: http://operationnezrouge.com/en/documents/ottawa-form.pdf[/quote'] all i can say is WOW!!!! how freakin stupid is that. u would think they should be grateful for getting volunteers for what is a very good idea. what the hell does a prostitution charge have to do with driving? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomer 33202 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 I think that this a reasonable in that this exclusion with many other offenses is based on a offense committed within the last five years. It doesn't say anything about someone that has a prostitution conviction after the five years are up. It would seem to me that the organizations takes a great risk of liability in doing this service. They have to look for volunteers that are squeaky clean. Also the volunteers take risks in that they are dealing with people who could no doubt be under the influence which could lead to some difficult situations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Megan'sTouch 23875 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 I think that this a reasonable in that this exclusion with many other offenses is based on a offense committed within the last five years. Why would you think it's okay to exclude someone from participating as a volunteer if they have a prostitution conviction within the last 5 years? They have to look for volunteers that are squeaky clean. Why would being a sex worker mean you are "unclean"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Studio 110 by Sophia 150333 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 GRRRRRR.... OMG!! Unbelivable!! I will never understand this one! I am left speechless! Huh! How is that they can do this? They would rather less volunteers?? I truly am outraged at this, thanks for the info! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomer 33202 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 It called risk management, I wouldn't be so good as to take someone as a volunteer who has a criminal record, period ( prostitution is only one of a number of offenses under that category). I think they are rather lenient with the five year sunset clause. As for your rebuttal about being unclean if you read my comment correctly about being squeaky clean, it is a reference to volunteers, and you are drawing your own interpretation, not the one that I made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amelia Fox 9064 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 I have nothing to say but aha! A DUI vs a solicitation charges..Wow what a comparison. Some things people come up with around the holidays are ridiculous! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meg O'Ryan 266444 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 It took me awhile to even look at this thread because I thought it was a glowing report. While it is a great alternative to drinking and driving, they need to get their priorities in order! Email of complaint on the way!!!!!!!! Yes, a bitchy meg does exist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Megan'sTouch 23875 Report post Posted December 6, 2011 It took me awhile to even look at this thread because I thought it was a glowing report. While it is a great alternative to drinking and driving, they need to get their priorities in order! Email of complaint on the way!!!!!!!! Yes, a bitchy meg does exist. I dunno Meg. I think it's probably better to drive drunk than to get a sober prostitute to drive you home......... I kid, I kid! Good for you for emailing the complaint. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted December 7, 2011 I don't know anything about it, but the liability issues involved in handling an enterprise like Operation Red Nose must be a thankless headache (50,000+ volunteers across Canada, all dealing with impaired and potentially vulnerable people). With Boomer, I also would guess that the simplest and safest approach from their own liability standpoint would have been for them to just screen-out anyone with a criminal record, period. Setting a sunset clause for some criminal offences seems like they've decided to have less stringent standards than it might have been tempting for them to impose. The detailed categorizing suggests that they've had serious legal advice about this, and aren't just winging it. It may be worth noting that in the "limited acceptance" category, the volunteer who has been convicted of simple theft or fraud is only allowed to drive his own vehicle. And the volunteer who has been convicted of a driving offense is only allowed to navigate, not to get behind the wheel of either of the vehicles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
da2root 871 Report post Posted December 7, 2011 Odd... and my 5 speeding tickets in the last 6 years doesn't seem to be an issue on their application. If they just left it as "Criminal Code of Canada convictions in the last 5 years" - good to go, but their list seems a bit off... putting someone who's committed arson causing property damage in the same category as a "prostitute" seems weird to me.... And you'd think dangerous operation and impaired operation would be offences making you incompatible for the program for life.... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CristyCurves 169032 Report post Posted December 7, 2011 This really doesn't surprise me,people assume{by people I mean the general public}those in this profession are immoral,therefore not good people,if a person drives drunk they could be a "good" person,doctor,accountant,lawyer,dentist, teacher,ect,that made a stupid mistake,but are of good character.Believe it or not!!Have a conversation about the sex business with someone thats not in it, sometimes the things they say and believe is shocking,sadly this I don't think this will ever change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuliasUndies 7288 Report post Posted December 7, 2011 Although I understand and appreciate that the operation discriminates against criminal offenses to avoid taking advantage of someone that is intoxicated, I cannot stand by their decisions making process for those applying to volunteer. In what world would we allow drunk drivers drive drunk drivers home? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted December 7, 2011 ... In what world would we allow drunk drivers drive drunk drivers home? They're not allowed to drive: ... the volunteer who has been convicted of a driving offense is only allowed to navigate, not to get behind the wheel of either of the vehicles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Dog 179138 Report post Posted December 7, 2011 They have to look for volunteers that are squeaky clean. Why would being a sex worker mean you are "unclean"? As for your rebuttal about being unclean if you read my comment correctly about being squeaky clean' date=' it is a reference to volunteers, and you are drawing your own interpretation, not the one that I made.[/quote'] I am sorry Megan, but I do take umbrage in the fact that you did not acknowledge Boomer's rebuttal. It was clear that his original quote was meant to illuminate the values and ethics of the program and their goal of having volunteers who are publicly beyond reproach; your rebuttal was deliberately provocative and inflammatory. We may not agree with the exclusions, but we must admit that the program does deliver a valuable service at this festive time of year. One of the sponsoring groups is the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and to that end, consultation regarding the list of excluded volunteers would have been made with a sound legal foundation. We must remain cognizant of the fact that the majority of the general public does not indulge in forums such as these and is not as liberal in regard to sex work as we may be. The media consistently portrays prostitutes as those working the streets, and those working the streets are often associated with pimps, organized crime, illicit drug use etc. Bearing that in mind, and with the proviso that those CONVICTED of SOLICITATION would be excluded, it is not unreasonable that the natural extrapolation would be that these individuals would be less than savory choices for inclusion in this "goodwill" program. It's not based on reality; it's based on optics and public perception. We may not agree with the decision, but until sex work and sex workers gain (for lack of a better term) "legitimacy" within public fora, we are going to see decisions like this be delivered openly. Just my two cents. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Megan'sTouch 23875 Report post Posted December 7, 2011 I don't have time to respond in-depth because I'm in the middle of exams, but I will say that the lack of support from hobbiests is very surprising. I don't think that "public perceptions" is appropriate excuse for perpetuating stigma against a group of people. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my ex-boyfriends father. He owned a drugstore in the 70's. Despite being a racial minority himself and anti-racist, he would only hire white people to interact with customers because of public perceptions. It was all about public perception, not his personal opinions, but I still look down upon his decision. Old Dog, I will refute a point you made. You said that when people think of prostitution, they think of street prostitution which includes drugs, pimps, etc. Why then does bawdy-house (indoor workers) get you a lifetime ban from volunteering, but solicitation (outdoor workers) only get you a 5-year ban? Obviously this decision is not based on the public perception you mentioned above. Also, if they are concerned about pimps, why are those who are charged with "living off the avails" not banned from volunteering? Okay, I've written too much, off to study! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ottawaadventurer 5114 Report post Posted December 7, 2011 I wonder if the terms are dictated by their insurance carrier. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted December 7, 2011 ...why are those who are charged with "living off the avails" not banned from volunteering? ... They are banned from volunteering - "living off the avails" falls under the "procuring" section of the Criminal Code, and "procuring" is listed in the "banned" section. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Studio 110 by Sophia 150333 Report post Posted December 7, 2011 I don't have time to respond in-depth because I'm in the middle of exams' date=' but I will say that the lack of support from hobbiests is very surprising. I don't think that "public perceptions" is appropriate excuse for perpetuating stigma against a group of people. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my ex-boyfriends father. He owned a drugstore in the 70's. Despite being a racial minority himself and anti-racist, he would only hire white people to interact with customers because of public perceptions. It was all about public perception, not his personal opinions, but I still look down upon his decision. Old Dog, I will refute a point you made. You said that when people think of prostitution, they think of street prostitution which includes drugs, pimps, etc. Why then does bawdy-house (indoor workers) get you a lifetime ban from volunteering, but solicitation (outdoor workers) only get you a 5-year ban? Obviously this decision is not based on the public perception you mentioned above. Also, if they are concerned about pimps, why are those who are charged with "living off the avails" not banned from volunteering? Okay, I've written too much, off to study![/quote'] I suppose I do see both sides to this, however, should it just not be all offenses, not singling out sex worker, but as you say what about the one who live off avails?? If one is charged with any offense, does it not show lack of being able to fallow the rules the law has laid down? When I was security guard, no one with any type of charge was allowed to be licensed, as it shows week character( according to them). Additional comment: LOL, I just seen what WIT had posted...I retract my statement on the " living off avails" 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Un*****nL****r Report post Posted December 7, 2011 Did you know that Operation Red Nose discriminates against sex workers from their volunteers? If you have a charge for prostitution' date=' you are banned from volunteering. Interestingly, if you have a charge for dangerous driving or driving under the influence, they will still consider your application!!! Read it here: http://operationnezrouge.com/en/documents/ottawa-form.pdf[/quote'] I never knew that...that makes no sense!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
