what prostitution law is best for canada?

[Phaedrus 209521]

It is NOT a debate.

 

Ohferfucksake.

 

This is the Internet. There are people here. They have opinions. And if you start a conversation, they'll join in. That's not a CERB thing; it's a human thing. If you start a thread here (or in any other interactive forum), expect replies... and when you get them, quit bitching about it. Disagree, debate and argue to your heart's content... but don't complain that the interaction happens.

 

Seriously, if you just want to put out your opinion without hearing from anyone else, start your own blog and disable comments. And don't come whining to me when you have zero pageviews.

[Meg O'Ryan 266444]

You took the words right out of my mouth. If you don't wish to hear what others have to say create your own restrictive forum. Otherwise, buck up and read the views of others. The only way to be educated is to listen!

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Open up your eyes (or wear your glasses) Phaedrus and see that the thread is in the form of a poll. Also read my reasons for suggesting the no debate notion. It was not intended as censorship. I was concerned that heated debates and offensive language will take place (and you proved me right) on this sensitive subject and people may get warning or suspensions and I didn't wish to risk that to happen to anyone. Why people always assume the worse is beyond me.

[Meg O'Ryan 266444]

Open up your eyes (or wear your glasses) Phaedrus and see that the thread is in the form of a poll. Also read my reasons for suggesting the no debate notion. It was not intended as censorship. I was concerned that heated debates and offensive language will take place (and you proved me right in the latter) on this sensitive subject and people may get warning or suspensions and I didn't wish to risk that to happen to anyone. Why people always assume the worse is beyond me.

 

 

 

Hmm I see no nefarious intentions at all; learning and sharing yes, those intentions abound! A poll is effective only when a multiple choice answer is available. This poll is not clear enough and therefore requires discussion.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Hmm I see no nefarious intentions at all; learning and sharing yes, those intentions abound! A poll is effective only when a multiple choice answer is available. This poll is not clear enough and therefore requires discussion.

 

I said discussions are welcome. Please read my posts before commenting forGodssake (I use the word God instead as some of us have seen classes!!).

 

debates can get really heated on this board sometimes so I wished to avoid a situation like that as for the reason. Discussions welcome.

 

And I guess you have forgotten that only last year so many people got suspended (SPs among them) in heated debates on similar sensitive subjects likely. Not to mention that I didn't wish to risk an unfriendly environment. I guess my plans and intentions backfired big time. As for multiple choice I don't understand how deciding on a best can be multiple choice. Yes please educate me on that (best being more than one!!!!). I guess no matter what choices a thread opener makes he is subject to criticism (I am sure some would have complained about it if it was multiple choice lol).

[PistolPete 61421]

More sense than the poll, and it is quite evident,so I say thank-you for your comment.

 

As I said earlier, I like too educate myself first prior to partaking in this poll, you have no clarity in your poll. BTW I live in Canada and what happens in NZ or Sweden or any other country is irrelevant to me.What is important to myself CH, the safety of sex workers here in Canada. Examples of other countries law's is fine, but I don't live there.

 

 

(and I concede that I am no expert) .

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Now as other countries law the reason I mentioned them was because they MAY become Canada's future law. Especially the New Zealand model (on liberal side) and Nordic model (on conservative side) are the likely ones if law changes but other options were there too and status quo (Canadian law now) and amended status quo (what superior court of Ontario had ruled) are there too as well as other options.

[canuckhooker 19203]

Open up your eyes (or wear your glasses) Phaedrus and see that the thread is in the form of a poll. Also read my reasons for suggesting the no debate notion. It was not intended as censorship. I was concerned that heated debates and offensive language will take place (and you proved me right) on this sensitive subject and people may get warning or suspensions and I didn't wish to risk that to happen to anyone. Why people always assume the worse is beyond me.

 

You post a poll, that you know will be controversial, in the hope that some other misguided souls will jump on your bandwagon or that the rest of us will bow down to your all-seeing wisdom. You started something you admit would be inflammatory, and then you get condescending to those who have real opinions that differ from yours, or who don't have enough "time in" as we used to say in the army.

 

Your sophistry has no place here. I feel so sorry for people who have the misfortune to have you as a teacher. But I guess a bad example is better than no example at all. They could learn what not to be.

[fortunateone 156618]

Emily you have been around for only a year but debates can get really heated on this board sometimes so I wished to avoid a situation like that as for the reason. Discussions welcome. Thanks for the link Emily.

 

As for New Zealand prostitution law (in which prostitution is decriminalized for both sides and pimping still illegal in it) I think that option 5 is closest to it, however that law is not unconditional (It is my understanding that anything bare like BBJ even Daty is ILLEGAL in New Zealand's prostitution model).

 

 

I wish I could add option 6 to the poll

6 - New Zealand model (prostitution is decriminalized for both sides, pimping illegal and bare services illegal too).

 

I requested mod to add option 6 . I hope it is not too late.

 

 

 

It is I guess illegal but I don't think anyone is going to go to jail for bbbj. Protection must be used because in NZ they are subject to Occupational Health and Safety protocols. Just as you want your food server to wash their hands before making your sandwich, so are sex workers bound by the kinds of regulations that make interacting with them safer for everyone. :)

 

I want to see regulations for health and safety brought in. I think it is the only way, everyone needs to be subject to the same kinds of protocols so no one is pressured to provide things that are simply not safe. whether they believe it or not, whether they want to or not. There are a lot of things that are unsafe that we want to do, but if they are regulated that you can't do them, then you proceed at your own risk lol but the sex workers will now have the ability to say, oh well, can't do that, rather than know that the one in the next room can and will, and they then start to feel like they 'have to' as well. This kind of thing protects

[Meg O'Ryan 266444]

Wow way to take my post and skew it! And what did you you mean about classes? I did not make any disparaging remarks sir and certainly did not attack. I will kindly refrain from any further remarks on this post and perhaps many others.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Now I see an unpleasant human phenomenon in here that I don't want to name! This thread was faced by opposing opinions but the reality is that there are more than 1000 viewers in less than 48 hrs and nearly 50 participants in the poll!

[Guest realnicehat]

Capital Hunter:

 

I never would have discovered this thread had you not decided to mention your boycott of Cerb on the other board this morning. That made me curious to come and see what all the fuss is about.

 

I have read a lot of your reviews and posts in the past, and what has always been clear is that you are a very sensitive gentleman. Unfortunately that sensitivity comes with some pitfalls. This thread is a perfect example of that.

 

You have so many posts and reviews that show how much you love women, but with your boycott comment you have led me (and likely others) to a thread in which you come across as condescending, uninformed, closed minded, and short fused.

 

Having read your posts in the past I realize that this thread is not you at your best. Others may not. This thread seemed poised to fade back into the depths of Cerb until you pointed me in its direction.

 

Please know that none of this was meant as an attack. It is simply an observation that without your boycott comment this thread, and hopefully your anger, will fade away more quickly.

[Kennidikummings 9755]

I voted for number 1... I believe we should have rights but I also believe that some rights shouldn't be there...

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Capital Hunter:

 

I never would have discovered this thread had you not decided to mention your boycott of Cerb on the other board this morning. That made me curious to come and see what all the fuss is about.

 

I have read a lot of your reviews and posts in the past, and what has always been clear is that you are a very sensitive gentleman. Unfortunately that sensitivity comes with some pitfalls. This thread is a perfect example of that.

 

You have so many posts and reviews that show how much you love women, but with your boycott comment you have led me (and likely others) to a thread in which you come across as condescending, uninformed, closed minded, and short fused.

 

Having read your posts in the past I realize that this thread is not you at your best. Others may not. This thread seemed poised to fade back into the depths of Cerb until you pointed me in its direction.

 

Please know that none of this was meant as an attack. It is simply an observation that without your boycott comment this thread, and hopefully your anger, will fade away more quickly.

Now I honestly don't know who is Capital Hunter and have never had previous interaction with his posts, but if I feel that I need to step in this one!

 

The OP (Capital Hunter) created a thread with a poll about prostitution laws. He was faced with opposing opinions some of them were in my view fair comments and others were more like a parental guidance/control.

 

Putting aside Capital Hunter's history aside, which I am not really aware of, and limiting myself to this thread, I see that he was over-criticized. But that is just my opinion.

 

Moreover, and just focusing on his poll results so far, I think they are more authentic! And closer to reality (more than 45 % with criminilization or partial criminalization)! And you might want to know why?

 

It is quiet simple, in democracy each member of any community has a single vote regardless of their status or posting history! There are a lot out there who don't post, or share reputation points who are still eligible to participate in the poll. They might have seen something that the majority of the elite of the community failed to recognize so far! Now, I wont say what that is because I want this post to survive!

[Guest realnicehat]

Now I honestly don't know who is Capital Hunter and have never had previous interaction with his posts, but if I feel that I need to step in this one!

 

The OP (Capital Hunter) created a thread with a poll about prostitution laws. He was faced with opposing opinions some of them were in my view fair comments and others were more like a parental guidance/control.

 

Putting aside Capital Hunter's history aside, which I am not really aware of, and limiting myself to this thread, I see that he was over-criticized. But that is just my opinion.

 

Moreover, and just focusing on his poll results so far, I think they are more authentic! And closer to reality (more than 45 % with criminilization or partial criminalization)! And you might want to know why?

 

It is quiet simple, in democracy each member of any community has a single vote regardless of their status or posting history! There are a lot out there who don't post, or share reputation points who are still eligible to participate in the poll. They might have seen something that the majority of the elite of the community failed to recognize so far! Now, I wont say what that is because I want this post to survive!

 

Miss Jane,

 

Even though I don't share it, I think your opinion that CH was over criticized is fair. We all come at these threads from a different perspective. Having read a lot of his reviews I personally feel, as I stated, that this particular thread is not CH at his best. I think it would be a shame if this was his legacy for lack of a better word.

 

As far as the poll goes, unless more votes have come in since you posted, the numbers I am reading do not seem to support your statement above.

 

Twice in this thread you have alluded to something yet you won't say what it is because you "want this post to survive". That is about as helpful as an escort recommendation with the providers name withheld. I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at, perhaps I'm too naive to read between the lines, but is it something so horrible that even if you presented it in a clear and respectful manner the thread would be closed?

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Miss Jane,

 

Even though I don't share it, I think your opinion that CH was over criticized is fair. We all come at these threads from a different perspective. Having read a lot of his reviews I personally feel, as I stated, that this particular thread is not CH at his best. I think it would be a shame if this was his legacy for lack of a better word.

 

As far as the poll goes, unless more votes have come in since you posted, the numbers I am reading do not seem to support your statement above.

 

Twice in this thread you have alluded to something yet you won't say what it is because you "want this post to survive". That is about as helpful as an escort recommendation with the providers name withheld. I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at, perhaps I'm too naive to read between the lines, but is it something so horrible that even if you presented it in a clear and respectful manner the thread would be closed?

Thank you for your comment. You have stated your opinion and I have made mine. Members of the community now have the benefits of both sides of the argument!

 

As for the poll data, the current number of people who voted is 64 which is almost similar to the other poll created for the same subject matter. However, there is a drastic difference between the two which makes this number the double, in effect! The other element which adds to the authenticity is the content of the data itself!

 

Nothing "horrible" at all, but let's say it "might" be intolerable! And there is a distinction between the two!

[Sweet Emily J 172062]

It is quiet simple, in democracy each member of any community has a single vote regardless of their status

 

Thankfully in real political democracy, the general public does not usually vote specifically on the issues that directly affect the whole population. We vote to elect someone who we trust is actually fully educated about all the issues, knows all of the details about proposed laws and changes, weighs pros/cons and recognizes possible outcomes and how they will affect the entire population. They will then vote on the specific issues how they best see fit to serve the people.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Thankfully in real political democracy, the general public does not usually vote specifically on the issues that directly affect the whole population. We vote to elect someone who we trust is actually fully educated about all the issues, knows all of the details about proposed laws and changes, weighs pros/cons and recognizes possible outcomes and how they will affect the entire population. They will then vote on the specific issues how they best see fit to serve the people.

 

If the above proposition is correct then why are people complaining from the current criminal laws as they are related to prostitution? Please note that the current laws were struck by the courts and not by the Canadian Parliament!

 

Weren't such laws created, at first, by the same people "we" voted for and whom "we trust" and "actually fully educated about all the issues, knows all of the details about proposed laws and changes, weighs pros/cons and recognizes possible outcomes and how they will affect the entire population" and ultimately "vote on the specific issues how they best see fit to serve the people".

[canuckhooker 19203]

If the above proposition is correct then why are people complaining from the current criminal laws as they are related to prostitution? Please note that the current laws were struck by the courts and not by the Canadian Parliament!

 

Weren't such laws created, at first, by the same people "we" voted for and whom "we trust" and "actually fully educated about all the issues, knows all of the details about proposed laws and changes, weighs pros/cons and recognizes possible outcomes and how they will affect the entire population" and ultimately "vote on the specific issues how they best see fit to serve the people".

 

The problem with your challenge of the premise is the passage of time. As society involves so do our attitudes. The laws that were struck down for the most part have been in existence for many many years. Back when Canada was a different country than it is today. Where living together outside the bonds of marriage was looked down upon, where the Catholic church was a dominant force in Quebec, where gay marriage was illegal, where a transgendered person may have been locked up in a hospital for their aberrant behaviour etc.

 

Those days are in the past and attitudes have changed. Modern legislators have much different viewpoints and beliefs then those of 50 years ago. If the laws being challenged were enacted in the last 5 years, then you might be right, but in this case things have changed in society's attitudes towards sexuality and relationships.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

The problem with your challenge of the premise is the passage of time. As society involves so do our attitudes. The laws that were struck down for the most part have been in existence for many many years. Back when Canada was a different country than it is today. Where living together outside the bonds of marriage was looked down upon, where the Catholic church was a dominant force in Quebec, where gay marriage was illegal, where a transgendered person may have been locked up in a hospital for their aberrant behaviour etc.

 

Those days are in the past and attitudes have changed. Modern legislators have much different viewpoints and beliefs then those of 50 years ago. If the laws being challenged were enacted in the last 5 years, then you might be right, but in this case things have changed in society's attitudes towards sexuality and relationships.

 

If I may respectfully disagree!

 

The Criminal Code of Canada was enacted in 1985 (i.e. not 50 years ago), and the last amendment was made in 2013 and at which point in time the "modern legislator" who " have much different viewpoints and beliefs" did not believe that there was a need to amend the laws related to prostitution! It is only after a prostitute in Ontario challenged the law in the Courts, that there is any hope today to invalidate the laws in question!

 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force in 1982, and it is for that reason the Criminal Code was introduced after (i.e. 1985) to conform to the Charter. It is also for the reason of the Charter that gay marriage is today legal, and transgendered like myself are not overtly discriminated against or locked up in hospitals, if actually this was the case in Canada few decades ago!

[VedaSloan 119179]

If I may respectfully disagree!

 

The Criminal Code of Canada was enacted in 1985 (i.e. not 50 years ago), and the last amendment was made in 2013 and at which point in time the "modern legislator" who " have much different viewpoints and beliefs" did not believe that there was a need to amend the laws related to prostitution! It is only after a prostitute in Ontario challenged the law in the Courts, that there is any hope today to invalidate the laws in question!

 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force in 1982, and it is for that reason the Criminal Code was introduced after (i.e. 1985) to conform to the Charter. It is also for the reason of the Charter that gay marriage is today legal, and transgendered like myself are not overtly discriminated against or locked up in hospitals, if actually this was the case in Canada few decades ago!

 

 

Perhaps, but the Criminal Code incorporated laws that were on the books much earlier. For example, the bawdy house laws. A bawd was an 18th century term for a madam.

[Guest realnicehat]

Perhaps, but the Criminal Code incorporated laws that were on the books much earlier. For example, the bawdy house laws. A bawd was an 18th century term for a madam.

 

Exactly. To be clear, the Criminal Code was enacted in the late 1800's with its last major revision in 1985 (yes, as a direct result of Charter). Prostitution laws have remained largely unchanged from the original code. At least that's what wiki tells me and its never wrong.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Exactly. To be clear, the Criminal Code was enacted in the late 1800's with its last major revision in 1985 (yes, as a direct result of Charter). Prostitution laws have remained largely unchanged from the original code. At least that's what wiki tells me and its never wrong.

 

So how is this different from what I have said! The last major revision in 1985 overtook all the previous versions of the Criminal Code. The new Criminal Code is cited as (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46). This citation has meaning in legal language.

 

Yes prostitution laws remained unchanged because the "modern legislators" and whom "we trust" in 1985 decided that all the previous laws and new laws were in conformity with the Charter.

 

These are the same modern legislators who never amended any of the prostitution relevant provisions over the last 28 yrs until three prostitutes took it on their shoulders to challenge the said provisions in the Courts!

 

These are the same modern legislators who despite their obvious knowledge of the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision never took any initiative to review and amend the said provisions, rather implicitly giving the Attorney General of Canada the green light to appeal the case at the SCC! Yes, let's praise our politicians for the sake of an argument!

[Guest realnicehat]

So how is this different from what I have said!

 

Well there is no need to get all exclamation pointy on me ;)

 

Your original quote stating that the Criminal Code was "enacted" rather than "revised" in 1985 makes it sound like the prostitution laws were created in 1985. It is not necessarily clear to those without a legal background (myself obviously included) that it included laws that had been on the books since 1892.

 

I'm wasn't trying to discredit you, just hoping to make things a teeny bit clearer.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Well there is no need to get all exclamation pointy on me ;)

 

Your original quote stating that the Criminal Code was "enacted" rather than "revised" in 1985 makes it sound like the prostitution laws were created in 1985. It is not necessarily clear to those without a legal background (myself obviously included) that it included laws that had been on the books since 1892.

 

I'm wasn't trying to discredit you, just hoping to make things a teeny bit clearer.

 

No offense intended by the exclamation mark.

 

The major revision in 1985 was akin to enacting new Criminal Code and that is why it is cited as 1985. The adoption of previous provisions as they relate to prostitution is equivalent to creating a law. Legislators don't need to make laws from scratch.

 

It was up to their modern thoughts and beliefs at that time to omit or amend those provisions! And it was up to their successors to do so over the last 28 yrs.

 

Last, as you can see no exclamation marks..lol