new prostitution bill

[Kate von Katz 49953]

I agree fully with the general sentiments of this new bill.

 

It's dangerous as it will further push those whom the bill is supposedly trying to protect into the dangerous shadows. Those who are most at risk are already marginalized and this will only exacerbate things.

 

LE will simply not have the resources for any prolonged crackdowns. There will - in all likelihood - be an initial show of crackdowns so that the pro-C-36 crowd can feel justified. However, before the bawdy house law was stricken down, LE did not make a habit of chasing down SPs who worked from condos/hotels/apartments even though they legally could have. I don't see this being much different. LE simply has better things to do. They may get pressure to go hard out of the gate, but it will diminish and of this I am quite certain. The real concern is the first couple of months after this bill comes into law and LE are being pressured by government. But the pressure will not come with extra funding and so this will pass, hopefully without too many lives being ruined.

 

As for prostitution being the oldest profession, I have to be an asshole and point out that it's widely recognized among archaeologists that flint-knapping was, in fact, the oldest profession. :P

[Escapefromstress 2976]

The subject-matter of 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.

 

All briefs received by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on C-36 will be posted once they have been translated:

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/C36Briefs-e.htm

 

Additional Comments:

Next week's Senate hearings will be available to watch through ParlVU:

 

Tuesday, Sept. 9 http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&currentdate=2014-09-5&eventid=9600&languagecode=12298

 

Wednesday, Sept. 10 http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&currentdate=2014-09-5&eventid=9601&languagecode=12298

 

Thursday, Sept. 11 http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&currentdate=2014-09-5&eventid=9602&languagecode=12298

[fortunateone 156618]

I agree fully with the general sentiments of this new bill.

 

It's dangerous as it will further push those whom the bill is supposedly trying to protect into the dangerous shadows. Those who are most at risk are already marginalized and this will only exacerbate things.

 

LE will simply not have the resources for any prolonged crackdowns. There will - in all likelihood - be an initial show of crackdowns so that the pro-C-36 crowd can feel justified. However, before the bawdy house law was stricken down, LE did not make a habit of chasing down SPs who worked from condos/hotels/apartments even though they legally could have. I don't see this being much different. LE simply has better things to do. They may get pressure to go hard out of the gate, but it will diminish and of this I am quite certain. The real concern is the first couple of months after this bill comes into law and LE are being pressured by government. But the pressure will not come with extra funding and so this will pass, hopefully without too many lives being ruined.

 

As for prostitution being the oldest profession, I have to be an asshole and point out that it's widely recognized among archaeologists that flint-knapping was, in fact, the oldest profession. :P

 

 

 

 

I agree.

 

Even my 87 year old relative says the govt is never going to get rid of prostitution. They should stop wasting their time on legislation like this and do something useful.

 

:)

[Mister T 45020]

The briefs submitted at the Senate committee can also be found here:

 

In English

 

In French

[Escapefromstress 2976]

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has posted on its website its brief to Senate:

 

http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=2297

 

Brief to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs regarding Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

 

This brief compares the Criminal Code provisions proposed by Bill C-36 against the Criminal Code provisions struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Bedford. It explains how the new law, if enacted, will replicate the effects of the old law on the security of sex workers and, as such, reproduce the harms the Supreme Court of Canada found to be unconstitutional. It further explains how these harms also constitute violations of international human rights law and how criminalization of sex work undermines the global response to the HIV/AIDS epidemics. Finally, it issues a recommendation for Bill C-36 to be rejected in its entirety.

[mrrnice2 157005]

The role of Senate hearings may appear to be a further investigation into "facts" of the matter however their primary role is in looking at wording and grammar and legal/parliamentary language of the bill. In THEORY the Senate has the power to defeat a bill but in reality it cannot happen as it would cause a constitutional crisis as these are unelected officials.

 

I expect that the hearings will be a farce, as were the hearings at the Justice Committee. It is clear that logic and sound argument will be ignored and the people that deliver the sex workers message will continue to be ignored and ridiculed.

 

This is now in the hands of the political system. The ONLY way that this bill can be tossed out is for witnesses to throw away their logic and sound studies and use their time to call out the evangelicals and the Tory puppets to a degree that it will force news and media to look at this legislation. The public has no idea of the implications of this legislation.

 

Anti Bill C-36 witnesses should use shock value or boycott the hearings entirely, because to appear with their message only empowers government to say that they have in fact listened and gives Conservatives validity.

 

My two cents worth.

[fortunateone 156618]

The Cons are very aware of making sure that the pro C36ers are not just heard, but heard the same stories over and over. I am not sure what the point of hearing about someone who was killed in 1990 because she agreed to do sex work for her BF, and possibly to pay for their drug lifestyle, because most work was streetwork then, and also the anti solicitation laws were very new, so we've got all that going on with someone who was already very young, trying to nagivate negotiations with street clients.

 

Existing laws and the SCC decision would protect her more than C36 would have, in other words.

 

 

My main point tho, is the Smith's run the John schools, or speak at them. One of the things that i did not fast forward thru was them bringing up the $20 million and their expectation that THEY should be getting a piece of that.

 

So it comes down to why are some of these people there? Seems to me, make sure that some of the govt $$ come their way. What's the best way to do that? Make sure that we blame sex work for the death of their daughter, not the fact that in this case she was assaulted by a classmate when she was a young teen, and that affected a lot of her subsequent choices.

[mrrnice2 157005]

Terri Jean Bedford has caused a stir and issued a threat as may be seen HERE, and isn`t it of interest that the hearings are back on the news again.

 

I sincerely and respectfully disagree with the comments that were written about that article arguing that her action is wrong and unprofessional and unethical.

 

I gave this opinion once before when the topic was in the news and the silence was understandably deafening, but I shall repeat it.

 

IF someone truly believes that Bill C-36 will cause physical harm and or death to even one sex worker, then I argue that taking whatever legal action is required to prevent that from happening is not only acceptable but also a responsibility. If that includes naming a client then so be it.

 

If I threatened a sex worker with physical harm then the fact that I had been a paying client should NOT give me immunity.

 

Threatening to release the names of clients who are planning an action that will kill women is not enough. Doing it after the bill is passed is irresponsible. I argue that if her statements are true then the information should be released immediately to the press before the law is passed and then let the press do the job that they have thus far chosen not to do. Their are ways to do it. In 1974 Deep Throat, whoever he is is unknown to this day, along with press investigation brought down a presidency. I do believe that the hypocrisy of some of these government members, NOT their use of legal sex workers, could cause this government to fall, and this bill along with it.

 

I am writing a totally politically incorrect comment that most will disagree with. I know that. There is no way that any sex worker or perhaps any client should publicly agree with this. All I ask is that all sex workers ask themselves where does client privilege stop and protecting your own life and lives of fellow sex workers begin.

 

Sorry if I made anyone feel uncomfortable. I don`t think that this is just a game if lives are on the line.

 

MN2 (who apparently is not such a nice guy.)

[waterat 20911]

All I ask is that all sex workers ask themselves where does client privilege stop and protecting your own life and lives of fellow sex workers begin.

 

I find myself agreeing with MN2. This wrong headed and dangerous legislation, I think, changes the game and may require some drastic action. If the hypocrites are outed (as RG alluded - we could only hope) it won't be because some provider is being unprofessional but because this legislation is a dangerous and thoughtless attack on innocent people. I don't think there are many people on this board who consider C-36 and the process it is following to be 'professional' in any way.

[Touch 57501]

Next Senate meeting on bill C-36: 17 September

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/Notice.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&comm_id=11&Language=E&meeting_id=15415

[fortunateone 156618]

i didn't realize they had another day. I don't think much of the police association guy, but glad Alan Young is presenting.

 

Geogia Lee Land is with the Evangelical Fellowship, and I seem to remember someone Evangelical speaking on Thursday already. so with limited space and time, are two non sex work related organizations from the same camp ground necessary?

 

 

here you will find Kady O'Malley's updates during the hearings https://twitter.com/kady

 

Scrolling down to Sept 11, you find the answers to questions and briefs recaps from Achison, and the male sex worker, and an actual manage of an actual body rub licensed mp.

 

tweet regarding Chris Atchison's presentation (she is telling Timea, one of the abolitionist organizations creators with their hands out for govt $$).

 

The senator didn't appreciate Atchison's suggestion that he (and other senators) had been disrespectful to sex workers witnesses.

 

Also, Senator Plett didn't appreciate Atchison suggesting that most clients weren't violent.

 

And more continued attempts to discredit the research that Chris presents (even tho he did not do the research by himself, after all, nor without peer review and/or advisors) https://twitter.com/kady/status/510145028183064576

 

 

https://twitter.com/kady/status/510098158832353281

 

This is true. Apparently in Sweden, the number of Thai massage parlours tripled after 1999 when the law was enacted, (their term is thai massage parlour, i am assuming all staff is asian, working with visas, not necessarily citizens). And a reporter investigated several of these mps a year or so ago, and found that as a new customer, 25% of them offered him happy endings. (I think there were 30 mps in a major city, the number grew to 90?) i've posted about this elsewhere before.

 

 

For those who want to read the briefs submitted, and presented, there are some here.

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/C36Briefs-e.htm

[Touch 57501]

 

 

here you will find Kady O'Malley's updates during the hearings https://twitter.com/kady

 

Scrolling down to Sept 11, you find the answers to questions and briefs recaps from Achison, and the male sex worker, and an actual manage of an actual body rub licensed mp.

 

tweet regarding Chris Atchison's presentation (she is telling Timea, one of the abolitionist organizations creators with their hands out for govt $$).

 

 

 

And more continued attempts to discredit the research that Chris presents (even tho he did not do the research by himself, after all, nor without peer review and/or advisors) https://twitter.com/kady/status/510145028183064576

 

 

For those who want to read the briefs submitted, and presented, there are some here.

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/C36Briefs-e.htm

 

 

forunateone,

 

Yes, I noticed Kady sitting in the audience busily tweeting!

 

Senator Plett indeed was very, very annoyed with Chris Atchison's testimony!!!

 

The three women testifying for Maggie's and Stella were so good-naturedly animated that I noticed quite a few senators smiling inspite of themselves.

 

Parlvu video coverage is an excellent resource if you have the time. Alan Young is on this Wednesday afternoon.

[fortunateone 156618]

forunateone,

 

Yes, I noticed Kady sitting in the audience busily tweeting!

 

Senator Plett indeed was very, very annoyed with Chris Atchison's testimony!!!

 

The three women testifying for Maggie's and Stella were so good-naturedly animated that I noticed quite a few senators smiling inspite of themselves.

 

Parlvu video coverage is an excellent resource if you have the time. Alan Young is on this Wednesday afternoon.

 

 

After he testified in the 2nd reading, the abolitionists created a hate website about Chris trying to debunk and undermine his research (which again, i have to say, he didn't just slap up some polls on review sites, it was more than one person research university approved supervised study) I say 'his' for simplicity sake. And MPs also tried to undermine the research, sneering at the findings and the method.

 

Same people will accept Farley's socalled research about clients in Scotland. Self reporting or face to face interviews, clients are obviously going to be considered to answering the questions in ways to make themselves look 'better', according to these anti sex worker types. But to me, you can't then say one study about clients (with such bad methods that people doing the interviews quit rather than be associated with it) is acceptable simply because it gives the results you want, and the other, with so many more participants, isn't OK.

[Touch 57501]

The Senate's LCJC committee met on Thursday the 18th, but it dealt with a very different matter: not with bill C-36. There was no agenda previously published.

 

 

I hope everyone did, however, see Alan Young's completely virtuoso testimony at LCJC concerning bill C-36 Wednesday afternoon. Astoundingly informative! (Entertaining, but not a very optimistic assessment.)

 

http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&currentdate=2014-09-17&languagecode=12298&eventid=9626

full video of 17 september

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/confused-prostitution-bill-can-t-be-fixed-lawyer-alan-young-says-1.2769152

Print CBC summary

[96Viper69 110]

How the hell can you reduce the demand for sexual services when sex is at the top of the human food chain

[Nicolette Vaughn 294340]

How the hell can you reduce the demand for sexual services when sex is at the top of the human food chain

 

It's not going away. Politicians like Mackay think they can abolish prostitution in one foul swoop and all I can say is that he's a dreamer. He is just playing a script to the tune of his party and once the new law is set in motion, it will be onto bigger issues. This bill is a Thorne in their side. Lets see how they will enforce it. My prediction is they will go for the easiest targets first and then you won't hear much about it again unless it's challenged through the courts.

 

As I said before, where there are laws there will always be loopholes. Time and companionship only is what we will be reverting back to.

Posted via Mobile Device

[oldblueeyez 15475]

Maybe us guys should start advertising our services and let the ladies reply to us? :D Prices and services can be communicated perhaps inversely and paid in the traditional way:

 

Oldblueeyez: offering FS and extras, contact for further info. :D

 

If it were proven that any money exchanged hands, LE would have nothing to go by but our ads, in which case we are Scott-free! :D

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Maybe us guys should start advertising our services and let the ladies reply to us? :D Prices and services can be communicated perhaps inversely and paid in the traditional way:

 

Oldblueeyez: offering FS and extras, contact for further info. :D

 

If it were proven that any money exchanged hands, LE would have nothing to go by but our ads, in which case we are Scott-free! :D

 

Interesting point and perspective:)

I was wondering, what about PHONE SEX OPERATORS?? I mean, I can have sexting and phone sex cant I???

What if my phone sex was only 1.00 additional to my time as an escort? hmmmm....daydreaming now:)

[oldblueeyez 15475]

Gotta think outside of the box, at which I excel at.

I foresee a multitude of male providers advertising here soon. :D

If LE prosecutes based on, "Come on, men don't advertise services, women do, we see through it"

then it's sexism and risks a Human Rights Commission challenge.

[Phaedrus 209521]

I don't think it'll fly.

 

Although the CPC refuses to acknowledge the existence of sex workers who aren't heterosexual cis-gender females, I think the language in C36 just talks about "people", and so all the laws that apply to female providers apply to male ones too.

[hillberry 180]

We should accept that this bill will be enacted and enforced as written. What we need to do now is discuss how to deal with it and preserve our ability to do what ever we want in a safe consensual manner. If done properly our response could even improve our encounters and eliminate the sludge that is occasionally experienced by both SP's and buyers. For clarity I don't support the new bill but I also don't think it will end this industry. Here are some initial thoughts:

 

Advertising: We need to carefully examine the new law and change the way we communicate so as not to overtly contravene the law as written. There is no law against dating services of which there are many. If no price is established at this point then there is no selling involved.

 

Encounters: Once in private we should discuss services and payment only after each party is comfortable of the situation. For established SP's and repeat encounters this will not be too difficult. For new encounters this places more emphasis on demonstrating each party are not law enforcement.

 

CERB site: needs to change to not make it easy for law enforcement to place charges. Intent to commit an offence can be established by law enforcement by engaging on this site in a way that clearly establishes the intent to buy or sell services.

 

We need a discussion forum on this NOW! before the bill is enacted to ensure we get our ducks in order.

[Guest *SS F***y]

It has yet to receive Royal Ascent. If and when it does, it will come into force 30 days afterwards.

I know it looks bleak, and some of what they put down, might sound a bit confusing, with all of their other laws getting jumbled up in there ( I think they do that on purpose, lol). One has to read between the lines in all of it, filter it, then, put it together to get what we really want to know.

For me, I'm not going to get too terribly worried, until it does get it's Royal Ascent, if it does, and then I'll have 30 days in which to decide my course of action.

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

We should accept that this bill will be enacted and enforced as written. What we need to do now is discuss how to deal with it and preserve our ability to do what ever we want in a safe consensual manner. If done properly our response could even improve our encounters and eliminate the sludge that is occasionally experienced by both SP's and buyers. For clarity I don't support the new bill but I also don't think it will end this industry. Here are some initial thoughts:

 

Advertising: We need to carefully examine the new law and change the way we communicate so as not to overtly contravene the law as written. There is no law against dating services of which there are many. If no price is established at this point then there is no selling involved.

 

Encounters: Once in private we should discuss services and payment only after each party is comfortable of the situation. For established SP's and repeat encounters this will not be too difficult. For new encounters this places more emphasis on demonstrating each party are not law enforcement.

 

CERB site: needs to change to not make it easy for law enforcement to place charges. Intent to commit an offence can be established by law enforcement by engaging on this site in a way that clearly establishes the intent to buy or sell services.

 

We need a discussion forum on this NOW! before the bill is enacted to ensure we get our ducks in order.

 

There has been a lot of discussion about this.

 

Plain and simple, no advertising of sexual services. Hobbyists will not be able to ask for sexual services.

 

Time and companionship only. We advertise as escorts, massage attendants, dancers, bathing suit models etc.

 

Get your atf contact info saved safely. Ask if she is available to see you at such and such time. No discussion of services. Stay away from new kids on the block unless she has been verified by others.

 

Have fun, the sky is not falling.

[Nicolette Vaughn 294340]

<p><p>I agree with Meaghan. It just means no longer calling ladies on the fly especially the unknown ones. While there has always been a risk of meeting SPs that aren't well known, do your research ad they used to do in the early days of review boards. If you feel leery of someone advertising that you don't know and can't get any legitimate Intel on them through reviews, other members then steer clear. New ladies have to start somewhere at some point but it will be up to them to prove they are reputable, not shady or law enforcement.

 

The best way to know a client or SP isn't law enforcement is to engage in a hug or kiss upon arrival or ask them to get more comfortable by taking off their clothes. LE will NEVER engage in any these things. Always place the donation on the table and then proceed. Money is not exchanging hands and do not discuss anything sexual until you are both naked and physical contact has been made. This is how I used to do things as a new SP and still do.</p>

[Cloud 1210]

The Senate will most likely pass the bill. If that happens then can we write letters to the Governor General of Canada asking him to veto it based on the fact that the process of creating the bill was flawed?