new prostitution bill

[Nicolette Vaughn 294340]

<p>I think this bill will not pass and what we will see is a watered down version of it. This was probably presented in a bid to make the Conservative government look good right now. If a backlash ensues, it will not be looking good on them and onto a bigger issue. Right now everyone is thinking the worst and that's why they want is to put fear in people. Where there are laws,there will always be loopholes. P.s Peter Mackay can go f**k himself. What does he care about the sex industry? he already has his former beauty queen.</p>

<p><font size="1"><i>Posted via Mobile Device</i></font></p>

[VedaSloan 119179]

I agree that it's wrong to be bitter about the original court challenge, as sex workers have a clear right to work in safety. They had no way of knowing which way the winds were going to blow politically. To be honest though...there is no "we", not when you get down to actions and not words. Johns are a hidden group, despised by society. People may or may not see sex workers as victims, but everyone detests their clients. It'll be up to the sex workers themselves to fight this law. We'll cheer from the sidelines, but the vast majority of us have far too much to lose to do anything openly.

 

One of the ironies of this law is that it will create the adversarial relationship its creators believe is already inherent in sex work. Where will the trust be, especially for people new to the industry? We will have to assume the worst, due to the potential consequences if we don't. All the critiques are accurate when it comes to how it will impact sex work, but this government has never listened to criticism unless a political gun was pointed at its head.

 

That bolded bit is exactly the kind of thinking that keeps this movement from getting anywhere. If clients actually spoke up, as a group, and said, we are not perverts--the sheer numbers of you would send a very strong message. And please don't take this the wrong way, but sex workers have a lot more to lose than you do--like our lives.

[Ann Gallerie 7910]

A friend told me that, as of April, he can no longer grow a few pot plants for pain and recreation. It all went to businesses, where the applications for legal rights are backlogged. A quantum 40-year backward leap; plenty of room in the jails.

 

In this case, they proposed a law so absurd that it will invariably end up back in court, where another Government can deal with it.

 

In fairness, they did poll the public. But it makes as much sense as polling little old ladies about pot. Both are rather exciting; they get a lot of "empty journalism" (quote Amanda Brooks). Yet they are victimless.

 

If somebody figured out a way how to get money out of prostitutes and clients, we would not be having this thread. As it stands, there's plenty of room in the jails.

 

The tidal wave that brought our issues to prominence was Picton. Let us never forget these souls and their families. It is our responsibility to keep on keeping on.

 

I would offer to say "fuck the bastards" but that's rather self serving!

[TheRiddlerMan 872]

That bolded bit is exactly the kind of thinking that keeps this movement from getting anywhere. If clients actually spoke up, as a group, and said, we are not perverts--the sheer numbers of you would send a very strong message. And please don't take this the wrong way, but sex workers have a lot more to lose than you do--like our lives.

 

Absolutely sex workers have to more to lose overall. Your clients will never speak together as a group though. If even a hint of this activity reached my "real life", I'd lose my home immediately and my job would soon follow. That's true whatever law gets passed, or if there's no law at all. That's just the way it is, and I know that's true for a lot of other guys reading this.

 

It may be unfair, but that's reality. The fight will be waged by sex workers, and we will stay underneath our rocks.

[VedaSloan 119179]

Absolutely sex workers have to more to lose overall. Your clients will never speak together as a group though. If even a hint of this activity reached my "real life", I'd lose my home immediately and my job would soon follow. That's true whatever law gets passed, or if there's no law at all. That's just the way it is, and I know that's true for a lot of other guys reading this.

 

It may be unfair, but that's reality. The fight will be waged by sex workers, and we will stay underneath our rocks.

 

No one says you have to out yourselves. But staying under your rock helps no one. As Charlotte said in another post: Donate to sex worker orgs like POWER, Stella, and Maggie's. Go to protest events incognito. When prostitution/the law comes up around the water cooler, speak up and say that you do not support criminalization which only begets more violence.

 

There are ways to speak up that do not out yourself as a client.

[TheRiddlerMan 872]

No one says you have to out yourselves. But staying under your rock helps no one. As Charlotte said in another post: Donate to sex worker orgs like POWER, Stella, and Maggie's. Go to protest events incognito. When prostitution/the law comes up around the water cooler, speak up and say that you do not support criminalization which only begets more violence.

 

There are ways to speak up that do not out yourself as a client.

 

Those are all good suggestions, and I'll see what I can do along those lines. My point though was really more that the heavy lifting is inevitably going to be done by the sex workers. The ones marching, giving interviews, being out in the open and exposed to the violence and social disdain. I think that's important to be clear on, more important than just saying "I'm with you" and going on with life as normal.

[canuckhooker 19203]

Again, it is still not law. It will have to be reviewed by committee, three readings, Senate and Royal Assent. It will not be done before the summer recess. And then it could also die on the order paper. If they prorogue Parliament, then back to square one.

 

Despite what has been said by the government's talking heads, a lot of those comments have been to appease the abolitionists, "See look, we are doing something!" knowing full well that it is not going to go through unchanged. The court of public opinion alone is going to go nuts with this bill. But they can blame public opinion and others for the changes.

 

There are so many holes and missteps in this bill it is crazy. I am still looking for a definition of "Sexual service" but have not been able to find it. The old procuring law specified "sexual intercourse" but I can't see where sexual service is defined. So where do they draw the line on that? Are BJ's and HJ's OK? Could a lap dance be construed as a sexual service? (it really is in some ways) What about webcam girls? It can be sex, and you are paying.

 

This is still a long way off, and I doubt it will be passed before the deadline on the SCC ruling, which could make things very interesting.

[CMJ 14869]

Again, it is still not law. It will have to be reviewed by committee, three readings, Senate and Royal Assent. It will not be done before the summer recess. And then it could also die on the order paper. If they prorogue Parliament, then back to square one.

 

Despite what has been said by the government's talking heads, a lot of those comments have been to appease the abolitionists, "See look, we are doing something!" knowing full well that it is not going to go through unchanged. The court of public opinion alone is going to go nuts with this bill. But they can blame public opinion and others for the changes.

 

There are so many holes and missteps in this bill it is crazy. I am still looking for a definition of "Sexual service" but have not been able to find it. The old procuring law specified "sexual intercourse" but I can't see where sexual service is defined. So where do they draw the line on that? Are BJ's and HJ's OK? Could a lap dance be construed as a sexual service? (it really is in some ways) What about webcam girls? It can be sex, and you are paying.

 

This is still a long way off, and I doubt it will be passed before the deadline on the SCC ruling, which could make things very interesting.

 

 

And lets hope it does die - a very embarrassing horrible death. Last night I was at the POWER social and one of the highlights was discussion on what sexual services entails or could entail - the possibilities are truly disturbing.

 

Any type of sexual gratification or indulgence could be classified as a sexual service.

 

Massage, Escorting, Webcam, BDSM, Strip clubs, wet tee-shirt contests, Porn, magazines, anime porn, sites such as youjizz (if its Canadian). I wonder maybe even the seeking arrangements type sites and services.

 

What defines sexual.... is it any type of arousal? and service? well I can open the door and help carry my elderly neighbors groceries for her - I am doing her a service.

 

Its a horrifying possibility. Now if the time for everyone to rally together and act. Write your MP, call, speak to your neighbors, regardless of context this is an attack on our constitution and a blatant slap in the face of our third arm of our government - the SCC which is the peoples last line of defense to hold their government accountable.

 

The government has no right interfering in consenting, legal aged adults, sex life just as they have no right in our bedrooms, religious beliefs, and other basic fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS.

 

Man oh man and I am PISSED at the sheer ignorance to even introduce this garbage as a potential new law.

[CMJ 14869]

to me its simple -

 

gay rights are human rights and society has embraced it even though we dont all agree or see eye to eye.

 

as a society we have embraced pro-choice views on abortion, though we all dont agree or see eye to eye we see an inherit right of the woman who is pregnant to choose.

 

Sex workers rights are human rights to and the same societal and government policies and views that support gay rights and pro choice should be the basis for this issue.

[drlove 37204]

Did Mackay really call us perverts? I thought he said "perpetrators" but I could be wrong... I watched him in question period when he said "Cue the scary music, Mr. Speaker". It was then I knew for sure we were doomed...

[CMJ 14869]

Did Mackay really call us perverts? I thought he said "perpetrators" but I could be wrong... I watched him in question period when he said "Cue the scary music, Mr. Speaker". It was then I knew for sure we were doomed...

 

 

yes WE are all perverts...

[MightyPen 67414]

Wow. I could write pages, but most of what I would say has already appeared in this thread -- Phaedrus in particular has largely voiced my own impressions.

 

I am really surprised that the bill is so blatantly puritanical and willfully ignorant of the facts on the ground. I think our government is just naturally regressive on social issues and especially sexual issues, but I didn't think they'd take a position that's so empty-headed and counter to the bigger social tide.

 

("Perverts"? Really? Fuck.)

 

Maybe the prospect of an election tipped the balance -- this will certainly play well to their base.

 

I have no idea what happens next, but I can imagine the thing passing into law as-is, then immediately being challenged. Then a long dark period of several years until that case winds its way through the various courts. Guess we'll see.

 

Berlin: thanks for asking clients to speak up on this issue without necessarily "outing" ourselves. I'd started to do that, but now I'm going to take it more seriously. I can probably do that with less risk than some others (I'm unmarried, for one), so it's a bit easier for me to undertake. But yeah, given the real-world impact of public ignorance that this bill seems to represent, I think it's time for me to shift over to a more consistent life rather than a fractured one, and to speak up more on a subject that's important to me. My part may be small, but I'm going to play it -- smartly.

 

Hugs to all. (Or handshakes and manly backslaps if that's better for you.)

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Is it just me??

 

I ask this because I have been in this neighborhood for awhile, ( metaphorically and literally ) Back in 1990's we spoke of "Time spent, companionship", and even back then we had commercial establishments. Granted around here in NB they were not always operated with the "best intention" but regardless, it ran for like a decade. They got sloppy, and now have a long lasting by-law that will ensure a place like this will not open again. NB will never allow a commercial place like this again.

 

Now they got brought down because they got sloppy and did not ask for ID. Yet, I remember because I was employed there years ago.

 

So, I was always trained to say " there is no charge for sex, only for time spent and hosting" so how is this different now then 15 years ago? I can say that it was different because we had no voice at all, we did not have social media, and certainly never talked about it as there were no way TO talk about it!

 

This is so backwards, now even small private places can not operate to provide a safe place with experienced collogues to help those ladies that may end on the wrong side of the fence if they no safe place to work from!

 

I wish I would have had a lady like me, "Sophia" when I began my journey!

[drlove 37204]

Is it just me??

 

I ask this because I have been in this neighborhood for awhile, ( metaphorically and literally ) Back in 1990's we spoke of "Time spent, companionship", and even back then we had commercial establishments. Granted around here in NB they were not always operated with the "best intention" but regardless, it ran for like a decade. They got sloppy, and now have a long lasting by-law that will ensure a place like this will not open again. NB will never allow a commercial place like this again.

 

Now they got brought down because they got sloppy and did not ask for ID. Yet, I remember because I was employed there years ago.

 

So, I was always trained to say " there is no charge for sex, only for time spent and hosting" so how is this different now then 15 years ago? I can say that it was different because we had no voice at all, we did not have social media, and certainly never talked about it as there were no way TO talk about it!

 

This is so backwards, now even small private places can not operate to provide a safe place with experienced collogues to help those ladies that may end on the wrong side of the fence if they no safe place to work from!

 

I wish I would have had a lady like me, "Sophia" when I began my journey!

 

Thanks for sharing, Sophia. Remember that it's always darkest before the dawn. I feel we have several factors working in our favour. The Conservatives were in such a rush to get a bill out that they didn't take the time to assess what went into it logically, critically and analytically. Instead, they went with their own moralistic, puritanical views and attempted to craft these into law by introducing this bill. Not only is it unconstitutional, but the media are all over it, thus giving the general public a sense of what the real issues are. Furthermore, regardless of how Canadians as a whole may feel about prostitution, they value their rights, freedoms and civil liberties. In fact, most respondents to online news articles in the "comments" section are in favour of, as they put it "legalization".

 

Now, without getting hung up on semantics, this simply means that they feels consenting adults should be free to engage in paid sex if they so choose without the government looking over their shoulder. Canada is a free and democratic country - one of the best in the world if you ask me. I'm sure no self respecting Canadian would stand idly by and watch their intrinsic human rights as provided for under the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms trampled upon. As I mentioned in another thread, we live in a secular society, and the value we place on the intermingling of church and state as institutions has largely diminished. No one wants to have antiquated, puritanical ideology rammed down their throats, as it's anathema to independent thought. That was for another time, which has long since passed. In short, there exists a dichotomy between the lobotomized existence the Conservatives would have us live, and the reality of how things really are. I'm sure Canadians are smart enough to figure it out, and eventually Harper and his flock will be compelled to adhere to the overall social climate of this day and age, whether they like it or not.

[mod 135639]

... I hate to say "i told you so" and i think everyone was ignoring me in hopes that the laws were challenged and would be somehow made better (you can look back at my posts as i warned everyone again and again) i warned everyone that no matter how the law was changed it would not fair well.

 

If anyone actually thought a conservative government would NOT do this (or would listen to public opinion) is delusional. It looks like they are asking for the most extreme (to appease the conservative extremists and settle for a middle ground so they can say they tried).... But you never know! Keep this in mind when you next vote!

 

Yes, its horrible.

Yes, its worse then i even expected.

Yes, we may all be in for a horrible ride.

 

We are all scrambling on our end... meetings with lawyers and trying to make sure we are prepared for the worst.

[drlove 37204]

... I hate to say "i told you so" and i think everyone was ignoring me in hopes that the laws were challenged and would be somehow made better (you can look back at my posts as i warned everyone again and again) i warned everyone that no matter how the law was changed it would not fair well.

 

If anyone actually thought a conservative government would NOT do this (or would listen to public opinion) is delusional.

 

Yes, its horrible.

Yes, its worse then i even expected.

Yes, we may all be in for a horrible ride.

 

We are all scrambling on our end... meetings with lawyers and trying to make sure we are prepared for the worst.

 

Sad but true, unfortunately.

[Talia Ciarra 3360]

Those politicians are hypocrites. No one uses escort services more than them and now they want to fight against prostitution....

[Guest **zz**x]

The law replicates everything that was wrong with the previous law. It will suffer the same fate as the last law but after some time. So we face 2 or 3 years under an unconstitutional law but - of course - that is enough time for the Cons to get through the next election and appease their "base" of hypocritical, righteous, right wing assholes...

[drlove 37204]

Those politicians are hypocrites. No one uses escort services more than them and now they want to fight against prostitution....

 

Exactly! They're biting the hand that feeds them, and shooting themselves in the foot at the same time... Of course, those spineless jellyfish would never have the gumption to stand up to Harper. I think it's time to have some fun with it.. Time for some SPs to out some politicians! I'll get the popcorn... :vf:

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

The only pragmatic compromise under the current circumstances will happen if the proposed laws are trimmed to allow people to communicate in the internet space freely. "Adults" in the 21st century should be able to make their homework and find legitimate providers. A Nordic model is coming unless this government is out of office before the laws are passed!

 

Pleading street workers etc. is heading in the wrong direction and not appealing to the public in this modern era where every kid has a laptop and the internet is far a better space than mingling in the street corners.

 

Putting hope that some miracle will stop this government from passing these laws is just a continuation of the delusional state where some people here envisioned a rosy world of consenting adults exchanging sexual services for money in front of Capital Hill.

 

Articles in newspapers etc. are nothing but a piece of crap in modern democracy unless the subject is "really" affecting the public. You say what you want and I do what I want. You speak your opinion and I speak the voters opinion.

[Guest ***t***iv***]

286.5 No person shall be prosecuted for

 

a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit derived is from the

provision of their own sexual services or

 

b) an offence made under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisementr of their own sexual services.

 

Sooo...I would say SPs are allowed to do their own advertising and keep their own earnings. Advertising a doubles partner is OUT! And guys posting ads on behalf of SPs is also OUT!

thats how i see it.. it does say that no one under the age of 18 should reasonably be expected to be there, too? like this site, it has an age check, same as my website, so no one under 18 should reasonably be expected to be there.

I sure hope that means im ok anyway.. geez

[Phaedrus 209521]

To be honest though...there is no "we", not when you get down to actions and not words.

 

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

 

MEDITATION XVII

Devotions upon Emergent Occasions

John Donne

 

Johns are a hidden group, despised by society. People may or may not see sex workers as victims, but everyone detests their clients. It'll be up to the sex workers themselves to fight this law. We'll cheer from the sidelines, but the vast majority of us have far too much to lose to do anything openly.

 

Sex workers are largely hidden too, and also frequently despised.

 

And given how much the Nordic Model (and a lot of this bill) is aimed at clients, it may take a client as a plaintiff to have standing to get those bits struck down. That's going to involve a lot more than cheering from the sidelines.

 

Phaedrus, I have a lot of respect for your opinion/analysis and how you present it. I also don't want to be perceived as anti-Bedford, because that's not at all the case. I just don't think we live in a world where Bedford could produce the result we were hoping for.

 

And I think that's largely our own fault.

 

Thanks! But... I disagree, obviously :) I think Bedford can and will be a major step toward the result we're hoping for, but what this bill makes crystal-clear is that we're not there yet. Other major steps are yet to be taken, and opposition will remain for a long time to come. I don't think anyone, either on our side of the debate or the other, expected Bedford to be the last word.

 

What will happen when the exchange of money for those services will be criminal? Will this community die because ALL discussion will be, de facto, discussion of illegal activity?

 

As I said in an earlier post: Look south. The situation you describe exists in almost all of the US, and neither the oldest profession nor the communities around it appear to have died just yet.

 

I'm sure some of you will argue this point, but consider: there is almost no representation in research literature for what is termed "hidden populations," meaning indoor sex work. There is even less research on client-side factors; motivation, demographics, profile, etc. Almost everything that can be read focuses on street prostitution, which we will ALL agree is very different, and much easier to stigmatize.

 

I think there *is* research (although I'm too tired/lazy to look for it right now). The problem is that a lot of it seems to be done with the aim of producing a particular result, so you may be right about solid, worthwhile science.

 

2. I do not now feel like a criminal, and even if this bill is passed I will still not feel like a criminal.

 

I vaguely remember reading somewhere (can't remember where so no link, sorry) that each American committed, on average, three felonies every day. I strongly suspect that most of us are criminals already, although we may not actually know it :)

 

There are so many holes and missteps in this bill it is crazy. I am still looking for a definition of "Sexual service" but have not been able to find it.

 

I suspect the omission is deliberate. Trying to define that would be just too much for their delicate sensibilities :)

 

Berlin: thanks for asking clients to speak up on this issue without necessarily "outing" ourselves. I'd started to do that, but now I'm going to take it more seriously. I can probably do that with less risk than some others (I'm unmarried, for one), so it's a bit easier for me to undertake. But yeah, given the real-world impact of public ignorance that this bill seems to represent, I think it's time for me to shift over to a more consistent life rather than a fractured one, and to speak up more on a subject that's important to me. My part may be small, but I'm going to play it -- smartly.

 

Yes, agreed - so if anyone has any suggestions (we've had a couple already) please post them.

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

I'm sorry, but I am really tired of hearing the "I told you so"s and "the laws shouldn't have been challenged", etc etc etc.

 

Yes, the proposed laws are scary. Am I happy about clients facing criminalization? Absolutely not. And I don't think that they will go through the House of Commons and the Senate intact, as they are, because they are recreating some of the same problematic laws. This is not going to be an easy road.

However, I am fully supportive of - and incredibly grateful to - Bedford, Scott, and Lebovitch. They outed themselves and challenged laws that made the likes of Pickton possible. Laws which made the most disadvantaged and marginalized workers bear >90% of criminal charges. Laws which made it difficult for us to screen and work safely.

"We" may have had it "good", but not everyone did. And not everyone has access to an indoor location, a laptop, a cellphone, and a reliable internet connection. Not everyone has the ability to work under the radar as "we" do.

So, yes, I understand that some people are upset because this has the potential to impact their status quo. Sorry.

No, not sorry.

I'm willing to bear with this bullshit if it means that the people who are the most at risk might have a better ending. I'm not a happy camper, either, but I recognize why this had to happen, and I am very glad that it did.

I manage to make an impact in small ways, which work for me and which do not involve outing myself. Part of that is going to be raising funds for the upcoming fight - I have a pig bank that is being put to good use (also, ironically) ;)

It's already been mentioned in this thread and across the forum and social media, but consider donating to a sex workers' rights organization. If you don't want to donate directly, I'm sure a lovely provider or fellow hobbyist can help make it happen.

[Royalfun 55449]

I'm sorry, but I am really tired of hearing the "I told you so"s and "the laws shouldn't have been challenged", etc etc etc.

 

Yes, the proposed laws are scary. Am I happy about clients facing criminalization? Absolutely not. And I don't think that they will go through the House of Commons and the Senate intact, as they are, because they are recreating some of the same problematic laws. This is not going to be an easy road.

However, I am fully supportive of - and incredibly grateful to - Bedford, Scott, and Lebovitch. They outed themselves and challenged laws that made the likes of Pickton possible. Laws which made the most disadvantaged and marginalized workers bear >90% of criminal charges. Laws which made it difficult for us to screen and work safely.

"We" may have had it "good", but not everyone did. And not everyone has access to an indoor location, a laptop, a cellphone, and a reliable internet connection. Not everyone has the ability to work under the radar as "we" do.

So, yes, I understand that some people are upset because this has the potential to impact their status quo. Sorry.

No, not sorry.

I'm willing to bear with this bullshit if it means that the people who are the most at risk might have a better ending. I'm not a happy camper, either, but I recognize why this had to happen, and I am very glad that it did.

I manage to make an impact in small ways, which work for me and which do not involve outing myself. Part of that is going to be raising funds for the upcoming fight - I have a pig bank that is being put to good use (also, ironically) ;)

It's already been mentioned in this thread and across the forum and social media, but consider donating to a sex workers' rights organization. If you don't want to donate directly, I'm sure a lovely provider or fellow hobbyist can help make it happen.

 

I'm all with you, Kathryn, and my donation will go to POWER of Ottawa and Pivot Legal Society.

[canuckhooker 19203]

Would every body please relax?? This is proposed legislation. We have seen what has happened lately with that.

 

First off, the DOJ took a punch to the balls with the SCC ruling. This is the counter-punch, the first, knee-jerk reaction. A sort of trying to see who is in charge the legislative or the judicial arm of our government.

 

Did the punch hit its target? We don't know yet. We see it coming but it needs to go through a bunch of hurdles to hit on the chin. (read the other very informed posts on the subject) So all of this is premature. Just because Mackay got up and said it and proposed it, doesn't mean that it will become law. It could be a tactic.

 

We all need to be vigilant, express our opinions and talk a lot. You don't have to say you see escorts to voice an opinion that the government's current proposal is anti-human rights, anti-freedom of choice. You don't have to say why you have the opinion, just express it.