Touch 57501 Report post Posted June 13, 2014 Yet another Supreme Court decision has gone against the Harper government. I still believe vindictiveness vs the court is largely responsible for this new bill that is the topic of this thread. Today's decision will only make the Conservatives dig in harder on this. They broke no contrary opinions. :( http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAKBN0EO1WY20140613 SCC protects Internet privacy rights 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Studio 110 by Sophia 150333 Report post Posted June 13, 2014 OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday that authorities cannot legally ask an Internet provider to give them the names of customers and other personal information without a warrant, a victory for online anonymity that puts up obstacles for police. This is good, but sadly it is being used to protect child porn:( I wonder, what tipped them off in the first place and why could they not take the steps for a warrant? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted June 13, 2014 I don't see a problem with them needing to have a warrant for this information. Certainly they don't have a problem with the warrant, if there is illegal activity and they have a good enough info to present to a judge to get a warrant, i don't see a problem. Not having a warrant is a problem, I think. i don;t think that if they gave the site info to a judge and it was clearly child porn, distribution or discussion or whatever, that any judge is really going to say, uh, nope, i don't think i'll give you a warrant for this. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Touch 57501 Report post Posted June 13, 2014 OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday that authorities cannot legally ask an Internet provider to give them the names of customers and other personal information without a warrant, a victory for online anonymity that puts up obstacles for police. This is good, but sadly it is being used to protect child porn:( I wonder, what tipped them off in the first place and why could they not take the steps for a warrant? More info here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/internet-users-privacy-upheld-by-canada-s-top-court-1.2673823 and at the SCC: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14233/index.do 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted June 13, 2014 sadly it is being used to protect child porn NO! NO! NO! It is NOT being used to protect CP, that is what Harper wants you to think. The Tories will likely be saying anyone who objects to the bill is a molester. Vic Toews said exactly that. Funny though, he was pissed off when someone posted public records about his ugly divorce online. The Tories want privacy for themselves but not for anyone else. why could they not take the steps for a warrant? Too careless/lazy to follow proper procedure, they could have got one but did not take the time to do so. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300292 Report post Posted June 14, 2014 Well this bill has already been complicated by today's Supreme Court Of Canada decision http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=182967 And as I have argued already, police are going to focus their resources on street prostitution. It takes relatively few law enforcement "bucks" to get a lot of "bang" (ie arrests, convictions) whereas now requiring a warrant to access a internet users information from a Internet Service Provider needs a lot of investigative resources and information/evidence to show a court to get a warrant to access a user's information Would be a lot of bucks for very little bang Police departments are bureaucracies and like any other bureaucracies they are given budgets and spend it as they best see fit. My prediction is the focus will be on street prostitution And don't think, as much as MacKay et al are ideologically driven, that this decision won't be reflected in the final bill/law. RG 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted June 14, 2014 Street work will always be the focus, doesn't matter what they do or don't do with this bill. It is just easier. You could see how much $$ and effort went into the January sweep, for very little in the way of results. maybe they learned to figure out how to get better results from looking at online advertising because of the mistakes they made in that operation. But when you contact 330 sps across the country based on their advertising, and find one single one under 18, and one other one in a coercive (according to them) situation, then you are obviously going to stick with what you know, the cheaper focus on sex work where you know you can arrest 20 people in one night with 5 cops. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midnite-Energies 110563 Report post Posted June 16, 2014 So according to the parliamentary website C-36 was not on the agenda today however Elizabeth May just tweeted that they are voting on it now and that the Conservatives are ramming it through. Guess we wait to see what happens next. 137 Yays, 177 Nays 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrrnice2 157005 Report post Posted June 16, 2014 So according to the parliamentary website C-36 was not on the agenda today however Elizabeth May just tweeted that they are voting on it now and that the Conservatives are ramming it through. Guess we wait to see what happens next. 137 Yays, 177 Nays It was defeated? I hope I'm reading that correctly??? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drlove 37204 Report post Posted June 16, 2014 It was defeated? I hope I'm reading that correctly??? What does that mean?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WriteOn 3250 Report post Posted June 16, 2014 Passed according to this website. https://openparliament.ca/bills/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midnite-Energies 110563 Report post Posted June 16, 2014 Just to clarify, there was a vote on C36 today. 137 Yays FOR the bill and 117 Nays AGAINST. Therefore, it is still moving forward. My apologies for those who may have gotten excited. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrrnice2 157005 Report post Posted June 16, 2014 From today's debate in second reading which was cut off by the Conservatives. From Mr MacKay, "I would suggest that throughout the bill we find ample evidence of the intent and the purpose of the bill to protect that group of individuals, to protect those who, in the vast majority of cases, find themselves involved with prostitution because of coercion, because of violence, because of experience early in life, in many cases when they were children. The empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence we have looked at indicates quite clearly that the vast majority of prostitutes today, men and women, were exploited, were victimized, often through violence and addiction, and brought into the life of prostitution, arguably through no fault of their own, at a vulnerable early age, at an early stage in their lives when those who were victimizing them should have been counted on to protect them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jafo105 39057 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 The following Bloc members did not vote: André Bellavance Louis Plamondon The following Conservative members did not vote: John Baird Dean Allison Leona Aglukkaq Garry Breitkreuz Rod Bruinooge John Carmichael Tony Clement Barry Devolin Peter Kent Mike Lake Ryan Leef Andrew Scheer Bruce Stanton Maurice Vellacott The following Green Party members did not vote: Bruce Hyer The following Independent members did not vote: Brent Rathgeber The following Liberal members did not vote: Carolyn Bennett Gerry Byrne Irwin Cotler Judy Foote Chrystia Freeland Hedy Fry Ted Hsu Yvonne Jones Dominic LeBlanc John McCallum John McKay Massimo Pacetti Geoff Regan Judy Sgro Justin Trudeau The following NDP members did not vote: Malcolm Allen Charlie Angus Paulina Ayala Dennis Bevington Alexandre Boulerice Andrew Cash Chris Charlton David Christopherson Ryan Cleary Joe Comartin Don Davies Libby Davies Matthew Dubé Pierre-Luc Dusseault Claude Gravelle Dan Harris Sana Hassainia Carol Hughes Matthew Kellway Alexandrine Latendresse Megan Leslie Brian Masse Marc-André Morin Peggy Nash Jamie Nicholls Manon Perreault John Rafferty Jasbir Sandhu Craig Scott Peter Stoffer Mike Sullivan Glenn Thibeault Jonathan Tremblay The above list of people are the ones we need focus on to get them to vote NO to Bill C-36. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300292 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 Correct me if I'm wrong, but now it goes to Committee? Does Committee run in the summer or does all of Parliament (H of C, Senate, Committees etc) all have summer break. If off for the summer when does Parliament resume business, and how long in Committee before it goes for third reading And my cross my fingers wish, when in Committee, they'll take notice of media reports and reaction to the bill, and suggest amendments before it goes for third reading But I'm not getting my hopes up RG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Dog 179138 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 RG... it now goes to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST). The committee will meet whenever scheduled - we are not privy to it at the present time. Silver lining??? The vice chairs of the committee are Françoise Boivin (NDP) Gatineau @FBoivinNPD and Sean Casey(LIB) Charlottetown @SeanCaseyMP ... both of them have been absolutely AMAZING and extremely SUPPORTIVE in their interactions with sex workers and clients over the past week and a bit on Twitter. One notable mp member is who is NOT on the committee - Joy Fucking Smith. Eve Peclet (NDP) @evepeclet, Pierre Jacob @PJacobNPD (NDP) also are on the committee and also voted against the bill. There are 6 CPC members on the committee. This is where we MAY be able to make headway. I urge you to take a look at Francoise Boivin Twitter feed... she is ENGAGED. Sean Casey is also ENGAGED. They DO HEAR OUR VOICES!!!!!! Add them to your twitter feed and engage them. The following are the CPC members of the committee who may also be on Twitter Mike Wallace (Chair) @MikeWallaceMP Patrick Brown @brownbarrie David Wilks @DavidJohnWilks Bob Dechert (no twitter) Robert Goguen (no twitter) Kyle Seeback @KyleSeeback Get involved! 11 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrrnice2 157005 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 Thanks OD for the information! For those who might wish to submit a brief to the committee, a link to the processes and procedures is here. I have written to the clerk of the committee asking for deadline dates for the submission of briefs. When I hear I shall post it on this thread. For groups and witnesses who might like to appear in person, I am not sure how to get yourself invited to participate. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WriteOn 3250 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) The following Bloc members did not vote: ......... The above list of people are the ones we need focus on to get them to vote NO to Bill C-36. I'm not sure that this is the best indicator on which members to focus on. There are many reasons MP's do not vote on bills. It COULD be that they don't support it or it could be they had other things to do. Bottom line is the Conservatives have a majority. I doubt any Conservative would put their political life on the line for this Bill. Edited June 18, 2014 by WriteOn 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Touch 57501 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-the-prostitution-law-debate-hear-from-johns-1.2675048 The committee will hear testimony week of July 7th. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeeRichards 177238 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 RG... it now goes to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST). The committee will meet whenever scheduled - we are not privy to it at the present time. Silver lining??? The vice chairs of the committee are Françoise Boivin (NDP) Gatineau @FBoivinNPD and Sean Casey(LIB) Charlottetown @SeanCaseyMP ... both of them have been absolutely AMAZING and extremely SUPPORTIVE in their interactions with sex workers and clients over the past week and a bit on Twitter. One notable mp member is who is NOT on the committee - Joy Fucking Smith. Joy "Anti-fucking" Smith I believe ? Had sex 6 times I imagine and 6 kids just cause God told her to. Eve Peclet (NDP) @evepeclet, Pierre Jacob @PJacobNPD (NDP) also are on the committee and also voted against the bill. There are 6 CPC members on the committee. This is where we MAY be able to make headway. I urge you to take a look at Francoise Boivin Twitter feed... she is ENGAGED. Sean Casey is also ENGAGED. They DO HEAR OUR VOICES!!!!!! Add them to your twitter feed and engage them. The following are the CPC members of the committee who may also be on Twitter Mike Wallace (Chair) @MikeWallaceMP Patrick Brown @brownbarrie David Wilks @DavidJohnWilks Bob Dechert (no twitter) Robert Goguen (no twitter) Kyle Seeback @KyleSeeback Get involved! Joy "Anti-fucking" Smith I believe ? Had sex 6 times I imagine and 6 kids just cause God told her to. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 Joy Smith is a powerful and influential MP, do not underestimate her. She says things like "The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada estimates a single Canadian victim of sex trafficking is worth approximately $280,000 per year to her pimp. This is big money, and our youth are their targets." People read that and think every SP is making $280k for a pimp. Speaking on bill C36 "This is a blow to the many brothels masquerading as massage parlours that saturate our communities" Parlours are in big trouble. Smith is very good at painting a black and white picture: ALL prostitutes are victims, ALL customers are exploiting them. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Exotic Touch Danielle 31731 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 The best thing for us to do for the time being would be to keep the contact information of those women(and gents)you wish to continue to see Smh 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 From today's debate in second reading which was cut off by the Conservatives. From Mr MacKay, "I would suggest that throughout the bill we find ample evidence of the intent and the purpose of the bill to protect that group of individuals, to protect those who, in the vast majority of cases, find themselves involved with prostitution because of coercion, because of violence, because of experience early in life, in many cases when they were children. The empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence we have looked at indicates quite clearly that the vast majority of prostitutes today, men and women, were exploited, were victimized, often through violence and addiction, and brought into the life of prostitution, arguably through no fault of their own, at a vulnerable early age, at an early stage in their lives when those who were victimizing them should have been counted on to protect them." Anecdotes are not acceptable as 'facts' or proper research under any other circumstances, why are they treated as final word in this circumstance. There are plenty of anecdotes regarding how sex work is not harmful as well, so why are those being ignored? I think also it would be imperative to find out what evidence they are actually using, if any :) Additional Comments: The following Bloc members did not vote: André Bellavance Louis Plamondon The following Conservative members did not vote: John Baird Dean Allison Leona Aglukkaq Garry Breitkreuz Rod Bruinooge John Carmichael Tony Clement Barry Devolin Peter Kent Mike Lake Ryan Leef Andrew Scheer Bruce Stanton Maurice Vellacott The following Green Party members did not vote: Bruce Hyer The following Independent members did not vote: Brent Rathgeber The following Liberal members did not vote: Carolyn Bennett Gerry Byrne Irwin Cotler Judy Foote Chrystia Freeland Hedy Fry Ted Hsu Yvonne Jones Dominic LeBlanc John McCallum John McKay Massimo Pacetti Geoff Regan Judy Sgro Justin Trudeau The following NDP members did not vote: Malcolm Allen Charlie Angus Paulina Ayala Dennis Bevington Alexandre Boulerice Andrew Cash Chris Charlton David Christopherson Ryan Cleary Joe Comartin Don Davies Libby Davies Matthew Dubé Pierre-Luc Dusseault Claude Gravelle Dan Harris Sana Hassainia Carol Hughes Matthew Kellway Alexandrine Latendresse Megan Leslie Brian Masse Marc-André Morin Peggy Nash Jamie Nicholls Manon Perreault John Rafferty Jasbir Sandhu Craig Scott Peter Stoffer Mike Sullivan Glenn Thibeault Jonathan Tremblay The above list of people are the ones we need focus on to get them to vote NO to Bill C-36. Why didn't they vote? Are they just not there? I know Libby Davies wanted to be for the debate, but had committee she had to be in instead. That is a LOT of NDP mps, that vote could have easily been defeated with only a few votes. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WriteOn 3250 Report post Posted June 17, 2014 Why didn't they vote? Are they just not there? I know Libby Davies wanted to be for the debate, but had committee she had to be in instead. That is a LOT of NDP mps, that vote could have easily been defeated with only a few votes. I'm sure it's very common for members to miss votes for a variety of reasons. If the Government thought there was a chance they would lose then all of the Conservative members would have been present you can be sure. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted June 18, 2014 Why didn't they vote? I think they are afraid of being portrayed as supporting perverts and exploiters. The Tories are very good at mud slinging. They will be all over anyone who opposes this bill. And we have seen how they are not interested in debate, they will simply scream abuse at anyone who disagrees with them. There is almost no sensible discussion of anything in Parlliament. A polarising issue like this is way too hot to handle. I wish it was different, I wish MPs couold sit down and talk like adults, but that doesn't seem possible anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
