Re: Justice Minister

[TeasePlease]

It was legal in that everything that is not illegal is legal. However, I don't think there is any constitutional reason why the government cannot simply make it illegal.

Many things that used to be legal are now illegal. You used to be able to own a machine gun in Canada, now it's illegal.

Whether they will outlaw it is a political question, not a legal one.

exactly! Folks are talking like buying sex was an explicitly legislated lawful activity If it were, I would agree they it would b tough to take it away.

As as a gun owner and target sports enthusiast, I know too well how something "legal" (not illegal) one day can end up on the prohibited firearms list tomorrow.

In fact, I'm very anxious that the SCC ruling will demand all of the Cons attention this coming year and they will not be open to making changes to the firearms act that many fellow hobbyists are hoping for.

I would suggest also contributing to pro-sex worker organizations like Stella, Maggie's, etc., so they can get their views out there to counter all of the phony propaganda trying to portray them as victims.

i would strongly caution this advice. Well intentioned, but could very well backfire. Spoc, Maggie's, etc serve good purposes. But they have very specific views about the biz. They are generally very distrustful of owners , agencies, etc. the have a very "labour" viewpoint of life.

Consulting only them is like asking unions how to regulate an industry while ignoring the companies/management themselves

 

[pocahottie]

Wishful thinking. The decision was, "since it's legal, it can't be made dangerous". They will just make it illegal. Problem solved.

You're forgetting who is in power.

Making it illegal or essentially having done that even when it was "legal" presents an interesting take.

Not at all

Not at all... Care to elaborate?

Prostitution was never legal. It was simply not illegal. It has never been acknowledged in statute or legislated.

Come again?

Prostitution is legal in Canada. There are no laws prohibiting the exchange of sex for money.

While the prohibition of the activities surrounding the sex trade makes it difficult to practice prostitution without breaking any law, the act of exchanging sex for money has never been illegal in Canada, a situation which has created and continues to create confusion and controversy.

You your answered your own question. Not illegal is not necessarily the same as being legal.

frankly, the ignorant binary-thinking dolts who have been telling people that it's black and white are doing a great disservice to educating and advancing the cause.

Really?

Do you normally go to such great lengths to not only confirm what I did say but dissolve your own inaccurate statements elsewhere?

Now again...I'll restate what you disagreed with initially only to confirm what was said;

" Making it illegal or essentially having done that even when it was "legal" presents an interesting take."

Now having established that... what are your thoughts on;

-making prostitution against the law completely; illegal
-introducing aspects of the nordic model which would criminalize the client WHILE allowing women to prostitute (which would be a "role" reversal of the aspects that did make prostitution illegal in practise)

if the above was to occur, do you believe in "ticketing" the client, or criminal charges
http://t.news.ca.msn.com/canada/ticketing-scheme-could-save-police-money
^ this would allow that in theory

And/or
-licensing being a requirement in areas that aren't already

 

[Aardvark154]

Writing to MacKay is useless. You're better off writing to the NDP justice critic, and the local MP in a not-Conservative party of your choice, and offering them your support (and maybe a little campaign contribution).

While the above is not a bad idea, I see absolutely no reason why one should not write the Hon. Peter MacKay. As a matter of fact the more people particularly members of the Conservative Party who do write to the Minister of Justice supporting moderation on this issue the better it is.

 

[MattRoxx]

Maybe, but looking at their past behvaiour I see no point in hoping the Harper gov't will be moderate.

For example, from 06/03/11:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/03/harper-government-omnibus_n_870368.html

Tough on crime or the fast route to a police state?

With today’s Speech from the Throne, Canada is about to embark on a radical makeover of its justice system, dividing the left from right with tough-on-crime policies such as mandatory minimum sentences and an end to pardons for serious crime.

While Stephen Harper’s Conservative majority government has served notice its focus will remain on Canada’s fragile economy – and passing the budget that had come to a screeching halt before the election – the law-and-order agenda is firmly in its sights.

Gov. Gen. David Johnston is expected to give full expression to the Tories’ crime agenda when he addresses the Senate chamber this afternoon, his first Speech from the Throne since he was appointed last July.

There will be few surprises.

Harper vowed during his election campaign to ensure that an omnibus crime bill, consisting of a compilation of at least eleven previously delayed tough-on-crime bills, would be passed within the first 100 sitting days of Parliament. All of the bills had been previously introduced individually, and, in some cases, had been kicked around the Hill for years.

The very majority government that Harper can depend on to pass his wide-ranging omnibus bill was born of a non-confidence vote over its costs in March, resulting in the fall of the Conservative minority government and a spring election. The opposition found the Tories in contempt of Parliament for failing to provide enough information about the costs of its crime legislation, following a historic rebuke by the Speaker of the Commons.

The full cost of the crime package is unknown, but Canada’s budget watchdog, Kevin Page, has warned that longer sentences and reduced pre-sentence jail credits will add $1-billion a year to total spending on corrections in Canada, along with more than 4,000 inmates to the federal prison system.

The bill is expected to include measures that tackle organized drug crimes, establish tougher sentencing and mandatory jail terms for child molesters and Internet predators, end house arrest for violent offenders, and revamp young offender laws.

Now that they have this opportunity, I can only anticipate the same sort of hard-hearted overbearing criminalization of many aspects of the sex industry. There is more likelihood of mandatory jail sentences, not "slaps on the wrist" for the purchasers of sex. If the Nordic model is used at all, it will be a starting point but the Harper gov't legislation will be tougher, stricter, more vindictive.

 

[TeasePlease]

Really?

Do you normally go to such great lengths to not only confirm what I did say but dissolve your own inaccurate statements elsewhere?

Now again...I'll restate what you disagreed with initially only to confirm what was said;

" Making it illegal or essentially having done that even when it was "legal" presents an interesting take."

Now having established that... what are your thoughts on;

-making prostitution against the law completely; illegal
-introducing aspects of the nordic model which would criminalize the client WHILE allowing women to prostitute (which would be a "role" reversal of the aspects that did make prostitution illegal in practise)

if the above was to occur, do you believe in "ticketing" the client, or criminal charges
http://t.news.ca.msn.com/canada/ticketing-scheme-could-save-police-money
^ this would allow that in theory

And/or
-licensing being a requirement in areas that aren't already

Not it sure how you've established that I've made any inaccurate statements or dissolved the same anywhere. I'd be happy to engage in intelligent debate.

We fundamentally disagree on the starting point, which is whether prostitution is a legal activity. You take comfort in the fact that there is no prohibition, therefore it is (impliedly) legitimate. I don't.

I submit that criminalizing prostitution, directly or indirectly, is a distinct possibility.

If you have followed the Cons policy agenda, you would know that they are clearly positioned against prostitution

i do not believe that criminalizing prostitution is viable, for the same reason that we don't prohibit abortions. But, I absolutely see the possibility of criminalizing johns. For many reasons, this would be a desirable political platform. Now, I could be wrong. The cons just might make prostitution illegal. There is certainly precedent for banning livelihoods in the interest of social policy. Drug dealers, arms smugglers, etc. it happens.

licensing is a separate matter. If bawdy houses are allowed, municipalities would have no choice but to deal with it. They would have to deal with zoning, and decide whether they want to impose any special regulations or licensing. This aspect could be done completely independently of whether johns were actually allowed to buy sex.

If you study how MPs work, you can see the interplay between the CCC and bylaws. A spa can find itself in a shitstorm after a raid, while it's customers waltz out of the spa. The opposite could absolutely happen in the role reversal you suggest. This is precisely why at least one major agency in Toronto would welcome criminalizing johns. It would pass all the CCC risks to the customer.


Merry Christmas, babes.

 

[bubble pop]

To the Hon. Peter MacKay PC QC MP (Central Nova)

***

Minister MacKay,

I am a prostitute. I command an hourly fee surpassed only by that of the most highly trained and able professionals, yet I have no education or aptitudes worth mentioning. I suppose that you imagine my sisters and I to be sheep, preyed upon by ravening man-wolves (you are the neutered sheepdog in this fantasy). In fact, we are more like ticks or lice, extracting condos, cars, cocaine, and designer clothes through a golden proboscis plunged into the TFSAs, RRSPs, HELOCs, etc of our erstwhile predators. While I appreciate whatever instinct may be driving you to "save" us, please recognize that we are best served by the status quo: invisible to the naked eye of society (and the CRA).

 

[pocahottie]

To the Hon. Peter MacKay PC QC MP (Central Nova)

***

Minister MacKay,

I am a prostitute. I command an hourly fee surpassed only by that of the most highly trained and able professionals, yet I have no education or aptitudes worth mentioning. I suppose that you imagine my sisters and I to be sheep, preyed upon by ravening man-wolves (you are the neutered sheepdog in this fantasy). In fact, we are more like ticks or lice, extracting condos, cars, cocaine, and designer clothes through a golden proboscis plunged into the TFSAs, RRSPs, HELOCs, etc of our erstwhile predators. While I appreciate whatever instinct may be driving you to "save" us, please recognize that we are best served by the status quo: invisible to the naked eye of society (and the CRA).

What would you personally write to Joy Smith?

 

[bubble pop]

What would you personally write to Joy Smith?

Nothing. The Joy Smiths will stfu only in the face of overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence that the majority of SPs are actually doing pretty damn well for themselves. SPs for very understandable reasons will never pipe up en masse about the reality of their situations, so the Joy Smiths get to control how SPs are portrayed.

 

[pocahottie]

Nothing. The Joy Smiths will stfu only in the face of overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence that the majority of SPs are actually doing pretty damn well for themselves. SPs for very understandable reasons will never pipe up en masse about the reality of their situations, so the Joy Smiths get to control how SPs are portrayed.

You mentioned an interesting point...

What happened if even the masses; prostitute, client or society alike really don't understand the reality of child exploitation in the sex trade, or that of human trafficking.

Then what's your stance?

Have you ever unknowingly or knowingly booked a girl advertising "independant" that states she is 18 when in reality she is 16- and pimped?

Have you booked a girl through an agency?

 

[Vixens]

You mentioned an interesting point... What happened if even the masses; prostitute, client or society alike really don't understand the reality of child exploitation in the sex trade, or that of human trafficking. Then what's your stance? Have you ever unknowingly or knowingly booked a girl advertising "independant" that states she is 18 when in reality she is 16- and pimped? Have you booked a girl through an agency?

Are you implying that all agency girls are pimped?

Steph

 

[ICEman72]

The sex industry is demonic in most people's minds. Talk to 25 people and 24 will wrongly think it is a sleazy cesspool that needs eradication. There is a PR problem with this industry that Teri Bedford, Valerie Scott and a bunch of creepy looking lawyers can't fix by themselves. Easy votes for the real sleazes now in power.

I'm not sure you would get such a high percentage thinking it needs to be eradicated. It would be interesting to see the results of a poll taken amongst vastly different demographics. I'd argue you would see much more support amongst the younger more progressive minded Canadians than those of the old school.

 

[pocahottie]

Are you implying that all agency girls are pimped?

Steph

Would you like to define the word "pimped"?

 

[ICEman72]

Have you ever unknowingly or knowingly booked a girl advertising "independant" that states she is 18 when in reality she is 16- and pimped?

Have you booked a girl through an agency?

I know for a fact that I have never booked an underage indy that was in fact pimped. How do I know? I don't book indies off backpages or terb who don't look younger than early twenties. Well, that and the fact I've only booked a handful of girls, 4 to be exact, and I am quite confident all were of legal age and not pimped. In my opinion, if you have to ask yourself or others if you think the girl is over 18 you need to lace up your dick and move on. That type of situation is only asking for trouble. Hell, I'm surprised at the majority of the reviews written by those having frequented backpages where they admit they willfully put themselves in such dangerous situations. If I book a girl I am looking to have some fun with an attractive partner who is also willfully looking for some fun and to make some cash. I have a tremendous amount of respect for working girls and the government has no right whatsoever to tell them they cannot make a living in their profession and be safe while doing so. I look at that as being a fundamental right of everybody living in this fine Country (even if the cons are turning us into the mini-US).

 

[bubble pop]

I have seen ~50 providers... walking into spas or indies. Almost all Asian. I have definitely never seen any underage girls, I prefer women over 30. As for pimping, who knows but I doubt it. If I was seeing tatted up chicks out of motels on the 427 then maybe. When I started I was paranoid that I was going to be seeing trafficked, desperate women. The reality was pretty surprising. I've met homely, overweight, older women who spoke little English and had no relevant-to-Canada education yet were finishing the payment on their third rental property while paying their kids' private school tuitions. These are women who would have trouble working the register at Timmy's doing better than most Canadian born citizens.

 

[Vixens]

Would you like to define the word "pimped"?

Absolutely. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pimped http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pimp.

If you're looking for my personal feelings on what a pimp is, I would consider a pimp/ hooker relationship one in which the pimp takes advantage of the hooker. A pimp demands that a hooker finds her own clients, assumes all the risks and then hands over the majority of her earnings. It is a parasitic relationship that is generally based on fear and or control. Hookers hustle and pimps benefit. Being pimped implies having no control or free will to decide for yourself. It's entirely to benefit the pimp.

What is your definition of a pimp or being pimped?

Steph

 

[pocahottie]

I know for a fact that I have never booked an underage indy that was in fact pimped. How do I know? I don't book indies off backpages or terb who don't look younger than early twenties. Well, that and the fact I've only booked a handful of girls, 4 to be exact, and I am quite confident all were of legal age and not pimped. In my opinion, if you have to ask yourself or others if you think the girl is over 18 you need to lace up your dick and move on. That type of situation is only asking for trouble. Hell, I'm surprised at the majority of the reviews written by those having frequented backpages where they admit they willfully put themselves in such dangerous situations. If I book a girl I am looking to have some fun with an attractive partner who is also willfully looking for some fun and to make some cash. I have a tremendous amount of respect for working girls and the government has no right whatsoever to tell them they cannot make a living in their profession and be safe while doing so. I look at that as being a fundamental right of everybody living in this fine Country (even if the cons are turning us into the mini-US).

We often expect others to conduct themselves, or react much like we do...

Is it then fair to say that although you personally have taken great strides to ensure you aren't booking someone underaged, that even though you do this, that everyone else does too? There for it isn't a problem or does not occur?

If your experiences then lead you to believe a majority of gentlemen conduct themselves like you do, you wouldn't necessarily be aware of anything outside of that, nor would they.

If you believe underaged prostitution only exists on sub par advertising outlets, as you've suggested- you truly are mistaken.

I would then also state, your awareness of the actual problem is limited based on your experience... Wouldn't you?

Certainly does not mean there isn't a huge problem, or that underaged prostitution isn't a thriving unfortunate part of the sex trade, often not clearly understood by even those who participate responsibly in the sex trade.

 

[lomotil]

The current federal government got a majority for the first time in history without Quebec. Harper would likely return with another majority barring a major scandal. Whatever Harper is doing translates into a majority at the polls. The opposition is weak and not even remotely in range of achieving even a minority government at present with Trudeau lite and Mulcair. The swing voter which might tip Harper's fortunes towards the Liberals or NDP is not likely to be interested in seeing the relaxation of laws with respect to the sex trade and Harper know this. The comments of the justice minister suggest that the Harper government within the next year will bring in laws which will be toxic to the sex trade without fear of losing any votes at the poll. Likely those who are working in the sex trade do not vote Conservative or may not vote period. If prostitution is made illegal before the next election which is a possibility, then which party would campaign to then make prostitution legal again? If prostitution is made illegal this will almost certainly result in another legal challenge to the Charter involving in SCC. Most likely Harper will bring in laws which are penalizing to customers and pimps only, not to the prostitutes themselves. Organized crime will flourish in the sex trade as a result. Harper is beholden to the evangelical bible belt base in principal.

Unfortunately, Conservative ideology is to criminalize adult acitivities they deeem "immoral". They can use several excuses such as:
-think of the children
-exploitation / human trafficking
-national security
-harm/benefit to 'society'

There is nothing to tell that asshat and hypocrite Peter MacKay he hasn't already heard or read. All you can do is vote (and campaign) against the Harper government.
It should not concern the federal gov't if I want to smoke cannabis, or if I can come to a deal with a woman and pay her for consensual sex. But they think that not only must the government get involved, these immoral activities which affect no one else, must be made illegal.

When younger, I optimistically believed that as time went by, society would naturally become more progressive. Liquor laws have been loosened. Stores can be open whenever they want now. Gambling is not only legal, it is promoted by the government.
And I also believed that it would follow that cannabis use would be legalized (as 2 Senate studies have argued), and that when people want to fuck, whether it's for love or money is none of the government's business. However as I grow older I see that there continues to be insane (to me) atavistic conservatives who hate to see people enjoying activities that they disapprove and are fighting a War Against Fun. So they make laws against certain ways to have fun, and try to throw as many as possible in jail.

Writing to MacKay is useless. You're better off writing to the NDP justice critic, and the local MP in a not-Conservative party of your choice, and offering them your support (and maybe a little campaign contribution).

 

[bubble pop]

We often expect others to conduct themselves, or react much like we do...

Is it then fair to say that although you personally have taken great strides to ensure you aren't booking someone underaged, that even though you do this, that everyone else does too? There for it isn't a problem or does not occur?

If your experiences then lead you to believe a majority of gentlemen conduct themselves like you do, you wouldn't necessarily be aware of anything outside of that, nor would they.

If you believe underaged prostitution only exists on sub par advertising outlets, as you've suggested- you truly are mistaken.

I would then also state, your awareness of the actual problem is limited based on your experience... Wouldn't you?

Certainly does not mean there isn't a huge problem, or that underaged prostitution isn't a thriving unfortunate part of the sex trade, often not clearly understood by even those who participate responsibly in the sex trade.

You love leading questions, line breaks, and triple/quadruple negatives. I guess if you had to spit out your opinion in a single clear paragraph you wouldn't be able to keep busy posting the same garbled weirdness 10 different ways.

 

[Aardvark154]

To the Hon. Peter MacKay PC QC MP (Central Nova)

***

Minister MacKay,

I am a prostitute. I command an hourly fee surpassed only by that of the most highly trained and able professionals, yet I have no education or aptitudes worth mentioning. I suppose that you imagine my sisters and I to be sheep, preyed upon by ravening man-wolves (you are the neutered sheepdog in this fantasy). In fact, we are more like ticks or lice, extracting condos, cars, cocaine, and designer clothes through a golden proboscis plunged into the TFSAs, RRSPs, HELOCs, etc of our erstwhile predators. While I appreciate whatever instinct may be driving you to "save" us, please recognize that we are best served by the status quo: invisible to the naked eye of society (and the CRA).

While I believe you are being sarcastic, I can only hope to God that you actually are.

 

[pocahottie]

Absolutely. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pimped http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pimp.

If you're looking for my personal feelings on what a pimp is, I would consider a pimp/ hooker relationship one in which the pimp takes advantage of the hooker. A pimp demands that a hooker finds her own clients, assumes all the risks and then hands over the majority of her earnings. It is a parasitic relationship that is generally based on fear and or control. Hookers hustle and pimps benefit. Being pimped implies having no control or free will to decide for yourself. It's entirely to benefit the pimp.

What is your definition of a pimp or being pimped?

Steph

Here are a few I found:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=pimp

http://www.change.org/petitions/mer...efinition-of-pimp-to-a-realistic-definition-2
^ as stated, the definition of a "pimp" needs to be altered, equally obvious in links we both found.


So I then looked up "procuring"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procuring_(prostitution)

"Procuring or pandering popularly known as pimping, is the facilitation or provision of a prostitute in the arrangement of a sex act with a customer.

[1] Examples of procuring include:

-trafficking a prostitute into a country for the purpose of soliciting sex
-operating a prostitution business
-transporting a prostitute to the location of their arrangement
-deriving financial gain from the prostitution of another"


"A procurer, colloquially called a pimp (if male) or a madam (if female), is an agent for prostitutes who collects part of their earnings."

Perhaps "procuring" or "procurer" better defines a broad scope of what a pimp or pimping could be considered.