canuckhooker 19203 Report post Posted February 14, 2014 I agree with what you're saying. However, let's look at it from the perspective of a client who opts for outcalls exclusively. Under the current law it is 100% legal. If the Noric model is implemented, that will change. Therefore, (pragmatically speaking) the risk of being charged exists, and if someone is charged, then the damage to their reputation and possibly their employment is already done, regardless of whether the case is eventually dismissed or whether the laws are again challenged and thrown out. That's what I'm most worried about. OK everyone is trying to understand the nuances and details of a law that has not even been written yet, let alone passed in parliament. For all the anti-Tory ranting in here and the idea that they are pandering to their base, all that does is show a basic lack of understanding in politics in Canada. That Tory base is pretty solid, and will vote for them no matter what. This issue is not going to sway that vote. But to win an election they have to appeal to a large segment of the middle including those so-called Red Tories. The Nordic model is not going to win them many fans in that segment for a variety of reasons. It is why they are going to try and avoid getting into the debate. Right now they are saying things that the vocal abolitionists want to hear. And remember a large number of those radical feminists etc are not Tory voters, nor will they ever be. They might move far enough right to vote for the Liberals but most of them are left of that. Regardless, speculating on whether out-calls are going to be legal, or how a law will effect someone is premature. Lets keep lobbying for legalization. That is what will help now, not wondering if I won't be able to have an SP over to the house anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drlove 37204 Report post Posted February 14, 2014 RG, agreed. I was thinking more in terms of the opportunity this would present for US style sting opps. LE could disrupt agencies by posting ads and then arresting clients as they arrive. Just a thought, though. My bigger concern was the impact on spas. This just illustrates the nonsensical nature of what the Cons are proposing. In light of the recent SCC ruling, brothels will be legal. So, if the cops arrest clients at brothels, they will be arresting them for purchasing a legal 'product'. This would be a big part of a constitutional challenge in the sense that it would be akin to the police arresting someone for purchasing an apple at the grocery store. Both sex and an apple are 'legal goods' for sale. The only difference is the flawed Tory argument that sex can't be purchased because doing so is 'immoral', 'wrong', 'bad' ad infinitum, ad nauseum, which in itself is a value judgement which will not stand up in a court of law. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300292 Report post Posted February 14, 2014 RG, agreed. I was thinking more in terms of the opportunity this would present for US style sting opps. LE could disrupt agencies by posting ads and then arresting clients as they arrive. Just a thought, though. My bigger concern was the impact on spas. But those opportunities already existed in Canada (everything in abeyance while a new law is passed) for police. Police could do undercover stings, booking encounters with ladies at their incalls (outcalls only are legal) They could book with an agency, when the driver shows up at the hotel with the escort have an officer ready to arrest the driver/security (living off the avails). Not to mention the shitload of spinoff drug busts they'd get because everyone knows escorts are just feeding a habit (btw sarcasm here, don't yell at me ladies LOL) Having a law is one thing, enforcing it entirely different...and dependent on police resources and priorities. Not to mention the Crown doesn't want it's time and resources tied up with what are to them piss ass cases. Finally the courts are already clogged up, they don't want what are to them needless cases coming before them Anyhow my opinion RG 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) Why don't they just do the education and awareness campaigns without the criminalization? if that is the point. Same results without needing LE to harrass sps, because that is always going to happen when you target clients. this is a link in one of the comments http://www.3news.co.nz/Law-change-could-drive-prostitution-underground/tabid/423/articleID/332067/Default.aspx it is a good place to comment, before they close it to comments btw. if you have the FB for it. I don't. ;) Let's keep in mind also that this is a piece of legislation is a private member's bill, not the governments. Plus she's tried to get it in place when it was only about human trafficking. She's tweaked it i think to equate with sex trafficking instead, to get more interest perhaps? Edited February 14, 2014 by fortunateone 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300292 Report post Posted February 14, 2014 Why don't they just do the education and awareness campaigns without the criminalization? if that is the point. Same results without needing LE to harrass sps, because that is always going to happen when you target clients. Maybe the government should lead by example then, and they first take an education and awareness program from those who know the industry best...SP's and Clients. They'd find a community which is mutually beneficial for both SP's and Clients. Then from that they could draft a law. One beneficial to those in the industry, both ladies and gentlemen A rambling RG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted February 14, 2014 I hate double standards, I hate social-engineering, I hate these people who beleive in equality until it inconveniences them. How in a free society can you punish only one of two people involved in an illegal activity? They are trying to find a solution to a problem by creating inequity. If they want to end prostitution then they need to make it illegal, outright. Half measures are just stupid and only designed to satisfy their warped view of the world. Punishing one person in an illegal act and giving the other a pass is so illogical, and their reasoning is so insulting. In fact it is misogynistic and misandristic at the same time. It makes all women helpless individuals incapable of making a decision for themselves, and makes all men predators and abusers. It's illegal in the US, and so of course it has been completely eliminated there. :) Both sides get punished equally. Oh, no, wait, it is illegal therefore no one gets punished because no one is doing it. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canuckhooker 19203 Report post Posted February 14, 2014 It's illegal in the US, and so of course it has been completely eliminated there. :) Both sides get punished equally. Oh, no, wait, it is illegal therefore no one gets punished because no one is doing it. :) You kind of missed the point. It has nothing to do with whether or not is illegal in other jurisdictions and if that will end the problem. It has to do with making matters worse by only making one person liable for prosecution for participating in the same act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted February 14, 2014 Just heard an interview with Joy Smith on CBC Radio regarding this. It may be replayed, or it may be on the CBC website. She sounds totally insincere and doesn't sound as if she knows anything about the issue. She very carefully chooses her words to toe the Tory Party line. I don't think she cares what is good or bad for women, prostitutes or customers. All she cares about is sticking to her speaking points. When the Tories do that it really makes me think they are dishonest and just out to get votes. Additional Comments: Let's keep in mind also that this is a piece of legislation is a private member's bill, not the governments. Harper keeps his caucus on a very short leash. I cannot imagine any bill not being vetted by the PMO whether private or not. Private member's bills are often used as a way to test reaction to new legislation. If it looks bad the government can distance themselves from it at minimal cost. Just try talking to an MP on any wedge issue and try to get them to contradict the party line. I've done it with Shelley Glover and Stephen Fletcher, yopu can poke holes in their arguments but they stick to them no matter what. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Miss Jane TG Report post Posted February 15, 2014 She sounds totally insincere and doesn't sound as if she knows anything about the issue. She very carefully chooses her words to toe the Tory Party line. I don't think she cares what is good or bad for women, prostitutes or customers. All she cares about is sticking to her speaking points. Great, can you please name some "sincere" politicians for me please?! The last sincere ones I searched for, were shot to death! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted February 15, 2014 Check out the comments section for more replies from susi! :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsukiyo_Chevalier 3242 Report post Posted February 16, 2014 Unfortunately as it turns out, the majority RG well because of our legal system only 40% of Canadians voted for the PC that is the crazy part :( also i just love the double standered of we think that all women (not men apparently) should be free to do and act how they wont, so long as it is in the way we think they act. I mean that is Nuts. I mean every political party is so-so but i know that i will never vote for the PC not if this is the way they think :( Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canuckhooker 19203 Report post Posted February 16, 2014 well because of our legal system only 40% of Canadians voted for the PC that is the crazy part :( also i just love the double standered of we think that all women (not men apparently) should be free to do and act how they wont, so long as it is in the way we think they act. I mean that is Nuts. I mean every political party is so-so but i know that i will never vote for the PC not if this is the way they think :( This is why this argument is getting futile. The democracy in Canada is based on what is called the "First past the post". So it is not an absolute majority, it is the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, and the party with the most seats is the governing party. It is not something new that Harper dreamed up. It is how this country has run for 147 years. The party with the most votes forms the government. Make no mistake the Tories got more than 50% of the popular vote in 3 of 13 provinces and territories. ( and more than 40% in 5 others including BC and Ontario) However, the only provinces where the Conservative party did not win the largest percentage of the votes were Quebec, Newfoundland and the NWT. The NDP came close in some provinces, but again, it was only one province that gave them that result... Quebec. And the result was so lopsided in that province that the rest of the results in the country were skewed. The fact is that Quebec has less than 25% of the population, and they voted overwhelmingly NDP, giving the party more than 60% of their seats and 20 % of the seats in the house. ( In Quebec the Tories had 16% of the popular vote and only got 6.6% of the seats) The only province that saw that kind of lopsided support for one party. ( in Newfoundland they got 28% of the popular vote and 14% of the seats.) Newfoundland gave the Liberals 37.9% of the vote, and they got 60% of the seats from that province. Is that fair, or democratic given your previous comments? The bottom line is that if you don't like this then press for a constitutional change, and I wish you good luck on that. This is how this country runs, and for good reason. You don't like the government, well sorry, but a lot of your fellow citizens have a different opinion. If you really don't like how our political system works then may I respectfully suggest emigration? You are going to find flaws in every political system. None are perfect. We don't pick our governments based on who we don't want. We pick them on who we want, and in the last general election more people endorsed the Conservative party then all the others. And that is not a political statement on my part, it is a description of the reality. If anyone doesn't like the reality then I suggest you get involved, you work for people of the same mindset, you advocate, you make your feelings known. If you want to sit behind the veil of anonymity and throw stones, then you are sure to fail. People who act get my respect; the others who do nothing but give us uninformed, whinging, earn my well-deserved contempt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scribbles 6031 Report post Posted February 17, 2014 Wow, Canuckhooker, seriously? To begin with, everyone has the right to form and voice an opinion on the politics of the day. In fact, "behind the veil of anonymity" or not, if more people took the time to become interested enough to discuss the issues and share their opinions, we'd actually stand a chance at having a useful democracy in Canada and the US. Instead, and increasingly, people are so utterly lazy and apathetic about current events that they latch on to whatever soundbite is given them by whomever has the most funds to do so, and assume that it's gospel. That's how we got our current ruling government in the first place; not substance, but style and posturing. So, suggesting that people move to another country because they take the time to have an opinion, mistaken or otherwise, is arrogantly close minded and incredibly unhelpful. Suggestions such as those are precisely the kind of bully tactics the ruling party would like to use to solidify their hold on leadership and quash dissent. Don't agree? Check out the leaked memo regarding their strategy to damage Trudeau's chances. Again, all style and dirt, no substance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scribbles 6031 Report post Posted February 17, 2014 Fortunateone, I agree about the education. I don't have any problem with the idea that sex workers can enter the trade of their own volition. I have a sincere question as to how anyone can make an informed decision to do this kind of work, since it's not like you can study for it, go to job fairs or talk to SPs at career days to learn more about what the work is like. I'm sure that many make the decision to do this work and gain enough prior info to make that an informed decision, whatever the sources. But, I don't think it would be disrespectful or harmful to have programs in place to enable those who want to exit the profession to do so in a confident manner. Particularly when you talk about street workers, I think the absence of such programs leads to some of the trapping behaviors that make sex work so easy to criticise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted February 17, 2014 Let's compare this to drug trafficking. Drugs=buyer is a victim and vendor is a criminal. Sex=buyer is a criminal and vendor is a victim. Additional Comments: people are so utterly lazy and apathetic about current events There you have it. I know guys who can tell you the life story of every guy on the Winnipeg Jets but don't know their own city councillor or their Provincial MLA. But they whine about taxes, they whine about "those guys in Ottawa", they whine about potholes. Meanwhile they won'y get off their butt to go to a community meeting. Can't go, might miss reality TV. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
