mrrnice2 157005 Report post Posted July 7, 2014 I NEED to vent! I'm sorry. I have TRIED to be quiet. I have held my words. If you don't want to read negative vibes then stop reading here. If you want to be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand then stop reading here. If you want to believe that this will all just, "Go away," then stop reading here. If you think this whole Bill C-36 is just blowing smoke, then stop reading here. I watched almost all of today's committee hearings with so called witnesses. I had my bible study lesson. I heard myself described as a perpetrator of violence against women. I heard myself described as abusive. The very few anti-legislation people were not permitted to fully answer the questions that they were asked. They were interrupted and asked to give yes or no answers! The so called witness list in no way constitutes a balanced view of the two sides of the issue. In doing research on the committee process here, the committee can only recommend minor changes. They cannot have the legislation removed or altered in any significant form. It is clear that the Conservatives are determined to pass this to try to eliminate prostitution in any form from Canada. It is also clear that the opposition is willing to let this happen if there is an amendment of changing the communication provision. My prediction is that the bill will for the most part be passed as is, but possibly with more protections for women against prosecution, for anything. There is NO possibility that I can see of clients not being criminalized. All political parties would support that. If no woman is charged with anything then there is NO opportunity to appeal to the courts or Supreme Court. Clients will NOT be able to argue any provision of unconstitutionality based on personal safety. The specifics will be left to "trust," of individual police departments, police officers, and the courts, after men are charged, as to what constitutes sexual services. One person, and I don't recall who, indicated that the success of abolition will be based on risk to the client and their public shaming. That would be pretty politically correct in today's world. Maybe they have a chance of success? And yes I am ashamed that I am not out there publicly, front and center. It's not that I have been any sort of a good paying client to anyone in more than the last year but when this bill passes I will probably be gone completely other than treating Cerb as sort of my adult Facebook forum, if it still exists. That risk and public shaming is important to me. One person asked me here on this thread or another if I had thought about what I would do or say in a courtroom, if it ever came to that. Would I lie about seeking or getting sexual services? The reference was made today in committee that women will be pressured into giving up their clients in return for non-prosecution. I guess the ladies will have to think that question out as well before they continue in this business. If you read this far I apologise, but yes, I am frustrated, angry, and they almost had me convinced that I am a pervert, an abuser and an exerter of violence and power against women. I'll calm down by tomorrow, but this was NOT a good day at the committee hearings. I know, I am the only one that feels this way and most of you wish there was still a take away rep points button! Just venting!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MightyPen 67414 Report post Posted July 7, 2014 If you read this far I apologise, but yes, I am frustrated, angry, and they almost had me convinced that I am a pervert, an abuser and an exerter of violence and power against women. I'll calm down by tomorrow, but this was NOT a good day at the committee hearings. I know, I am the only one that feels this way and most of you wish there was still a take away rep points button! Just venting!!! The committee hearings (and the entire consultation/review process in fact) are like a Soviet show trial. The script is tightly controlled (you saw this with the "yes"/"no" options) and absolutely nothing said there will alter what's coming, because the Conservatives are behind this in lockstep and they have the votes to pass it. The Conservatives know that overall, the popular will is either indifferent or against this (they have those secret survey results to prove it), and they probably know that the bill-soon-to-be-law won't withstand a legal challenge. But it doesn't matter -- this is political theatre for their base to get the future vote out. There's an election coming, and it's about THAT. Nothing matters until the inevitable court challenge after the law is passed. Everything rides on that challenge. All we can do in the meantime is hang on. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted July 9, 2014 One thing I am not sure about is the London reference 'starting' the invisible man project. Here is some additional info, feel free to share this on other sites you are on so others will know what that project is: http://invisible-men-canada.tumblr.com/ which is a rip off of this from the UK, like not even a little bit different http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/ The UK site is obviously older. If the Canadian version is this new, then I wonder why is it, John #8's review is from 2006. Was it that difficult, searching thru 3 minimum sites, going over reviews of which there must be plenty of really recent ones, that the best she can do is find one 7 years old to use as an example? Plus, if you found that review, you would find a guy who pays the agreed price, and in fact was prepared to spend more, but she couldn't provide more than the bj services at the time. i don't have a problem with a guy who doesn't bicker rates, as low as they may already be. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest **ve**y Report post Posted July 10, 2014 An interesting read: a technical paper by the Department of Justice about Bill C-36 and its provisions. It sheds some light on how the Department views the Bill and how its provisions should be interpreted. TECHNICAL PAPER - Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act) http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/protect.pdf Definitely something lawyers interested by the subject should be reading! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Touch 57501 Report post Posted July 10, 2014 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/prostitution-bill-has-the-makings-of-another-moral-panic/article19256534/ In case you missed this article as I did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amber76x 241 Report post Posted July 10, 2014 I guess I didnt draw in enough politicians and judges to my business this year? Shucks sorry guys ill try harder next year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest S****r Report post Posted July 10, 2014 I guess I didnt draw in enough politicians and judges to my business this year? Shucks sorry guys ill try harder next year. It's not that they are not present here in enough numbers, it's that they are too hypocritical to give room to the presentation of this side of the industry. I know you know that and said that tongue-in-cheek; but I just had to say it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) I found today there was far too much time taken up by rape relief centres. I fail to see the point of the one woman who says she wants C36 because she sees a future where she and her daughter can go out somewhere and men don't hit on them, il.e. view them as sexualized beings, I guess? She complains someone pinched her when she was in a bar (paraphrasing her of course), like it is a form of sexual assault to her. i can only see her thinking C36 means no more street workers, so guys who drive around will stop thinking every single woman on the sidewalk needs to be solicited for sex, which i think is pretty rare now? fwiw, as soon as Ratanak guy said 'Cambodia' i stopped listening because i knew he was going to start lying. The NGOs there put up fake stories to lure in and trick guys just like that, in order to keep the money rolling in. Any investigative reporting has shown the stories tend to be untrue, the reports of horrible things happening to children are faked, and that the majority of sex workers being 'rescued' don't want to be rescued at all. http://truth-out.org/news/item/24827-from-somaly-mam-to-eden-how-sex-trafficking-sensationalism-hurts-sex-workers Edited July 11, 2014 by fortunateone 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erica Obsession 2076 Report post Posted July 11, 2014 FortunateOne, I'm glad you brought this up. Yes, it would seem as though the entire committee process disproportionately represented witnesses relaying stories where there is already legislation, i.e. rape, human trafficking, torture, and assault. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dori 759 Report post Posted July 11, 2014 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/prostitution-bill-has-the-makings-of-another-moral-panic/article19256534/ In case you missed this article as I did. Well if you look at how the media is actively portraying it to the public .... "criminalizing the purchasers who create the demand for paid sex. " .... which means this is how police departments will end up treating the whole thing. So basically it will be a carbon copy of the US system. They keep saying its the Nordic model, but its definitely not the Nordic model. http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/should-the-government-define-what-sex-is-1 They're preparing the public to get used to the idea of criminalizing the purchasers and see them as criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted July 11, 2014 Canadian Police Approves of the bill because it provides officers with increased tools to intervene to target predators. He argued that the provisions struck down in Bedford made enforcement more challenging. He believes that targeting the buyers will end the adversarial relationship between the police and sex workers. 1:Arresting customers is hardly going to end the adversarial relationship! Either this policeman is lying or is incredibly stupid. Does he think sex workers will line up to shake his hand and thank him for cutting off their income! 2:Police have all the tools they need, right now. Unfortunately our neo-Nazi police won't ever be happy, they always want more powers, more surveillance, more right to seize, more draconian laws. No doubt many of them cried all night when Lavrenti Beria wannabe Toews gave up his post as head of Canada's KGB. Have the police EVER, EVER said "We have enough power, we would like to see more freedom for the citizens we supposedly protect"? Serious question and I invite responses from any actual police. When is enough, enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erica Obsession 2076 Report post Posted July 12, 2014 I completely agree with you that the argument is counterintuitive. Yes, the police really do like their additional powers : ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted July 13, 2014 ^^^ it wasn't just the conservatives that were rude to the anti-C36 presenters. It turns out that those same victim based rescue organization presenters spent some of their time making rude remarks as well https://twitter.com/kwetoday/status/487772527213559809 Against Boivin: http://kwetoday.com/2014/07/12/we-are-persons-too-sexwork-c36-c36just/comment-page-1/#comment-1035 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gabriella Laurence 301887 Report post Posted July 13, 2014 http://kwetoday.com/2014/07/12/we-are-persons-too-sexwork-c36-c36just/comment-page-1/#comment-1035 Thank you for sharing that link. Very interesting read. I'll definitely be checking out the rest of her blog. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Dog 179138 Report post Posted July 13, 2014 another prostitution bill? I haven't even paid off my last one.... 7 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erica Obsession 2076 Report post Posted July 13, 2014 ^^^ it wasn't just the conservatives that were rude to the anti-C36 presenters. It turns out that those same victim based rescue organization presenters spent some of their time making rude remarks as well I have to admit that I am frustrated with the negativity on both sides of the debate. The anti-prostitution groups are negative but then again so is our side. At committee, I saw two pro-prostitution witnesses with a hostile tone. This really does not help the issue. Additionally, Twitter has been aflame with vitriol on both sides and it is just so unnecessary. The industry would be better served if we demonstrated some class and dignity. Until the industry demonstrates that we are more than just our job then we will always lose. The Kwetoday blog is certainly a step forward - I am delighted. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waterat 20911 Report post Posted July 13, 2014 The industry would be better served if we demonstrated some class and dignity. I agree completely..... sadly the examples set by the House of Commons and Senate leap to mind! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest k *** t***n Report post Posted July 14, 2014 I agree, it is definitely hard to remain calm when we all are so protective over this hobby and lifestyle. I tried emailing as many members of parliament, news reporters both on and offline etc. All I was able to do was strike the interest of Huff post.com who said they were interested in using my story of the other side of prostitution, they wanted my real name and a photo so I agreed because I really believe in us getting our voices heard. The reporter thanked me and then...never heard back from them.. No emails from my other attempts to party members were returned either. Its hard to not get upset and it makes me feel like we are just silenced and tossed aside. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Touch 57501 Report post Posted July 14, 2014 (edited) Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:30 AM-6:15 PM JUST Meeting No. 44 (Centre Block - 237-C) HOUSE OF COMMONS Justice Committee on ParlVU http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/PARLVU/DayView.aspx?date=20140715&lang=en Edited July 16, 2014 by Touch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
abracadabra 100 Report post Posted July 14, 2014 The only 2 things this bill will do; drive the current legitimate business into the 'illegal' trade, and in doing so, strengthen the illegal business. This has nothing to do with protecting anything but politics... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted July 15, 2014 Scroll back to the beginning of the events to watch the (sometimes humourous) recaps of the committee meeting and C36 https://twitter.com/kady Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VedaSloan 119179 Report post Posted July 16, 2014 So the bill has passed second reading with minor amendment to the section about solicitation--they changed it from illegal "anywhere a minor could reasonably expected to be present" to illegal "outside schools, parks or daycares." Goes to the Senate next. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcats 100 Report post Posted July 16, 2014 I've been talking to a friend who is a legal scholar about this bill. She thinks that the supreme court will also shut this one down as unconstitutional. Controversial, I know, but she seems to have good justifications. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Studio 110 by Sophia 150333 Report post Posted July 16, 2014 I've been talking to a friend who is a legal scholar about this bill. She thinks that the supreme court will also shut this one down as unconstitutional. Controversial, I know, but she seems to have good justifications. I hope so, but it took so many years for SCC to get the previous laws changed, so I hope we all don't have to wait another 10 years ( or however long) for this to be changed, meanwhile.....??? It IS unconstitutional, but so were the last:( But till it goes threw the motion of the courts, it can be tied up there for awhile. This is a "Political appearance" game strategy, not constitutional rights in any way:( They can TRY to pass it, and just tie up time for a good face to the moral police. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ice4fun 78407 Report post Posted July 16, 2014 The war is only just beginning.... the Bedford case was the first battle this bill and it's pathway back to the courts several years from now will be the second... this is a cultural change similar to the civil rights movement... it will take years but the die is cast... the outcome certain... all we need now is SP'S and Clients willing to stay the course and fight the battles. Just my opinion 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
