Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments
- Thread starter gustave55
- Start date
Oh great now i am a "criminal" in the eyes of the government 
me in prison, "what you in for playa?"....answer, "buying pussy yo"
i might as well just stop paying fucking taxes then.
me in prison, "what you in for playa?"....answer, "buying pussy yo"
i might as well just stop paying fucking taxes then.
Tell me about it...Oh great now i am a "criminal" in the eyes of the government
me in prison, "what you in for playa?"....answer, "buying pussy yo"
i might as well just stop paying fucking taxes then.
Government Prostitution Survey Results – A Message From Terri-Jean Bedford
Posted on 2014/06/03
The survey is a scam. I say that despite the fact that the respondents agreed with us that the sale of sex should remain legal. The respondents were also not decisively against purchase of sex or in favour of charging all the associates of sex workers. So even this rigged survey, assuming we are being correctly informed about the response, does not give clear direction to the government. I say the survey was rigged and a scam for a number of reasons. Here are some of them. For one, who drew up the questions? Why a question asking if the government should tell consenting adults what they can do in private for money? Why wasn’t there a question asking what should be included in the definition of a sex act or sex? Why wasn’t there a question about which As to criminalizing the purchase of sex, I am including below an open letter from many leading Canadian intellectuals familiar with the issues at hand. I ask you to read the letter. Look as well at who received it and who sent it. It should convince you that if the government does introduce the so-called Nordic approach it will ensure that Mr. Harper and his ministers will be seen as cowards only looking out for themselves by doing what organized crime wants them to do: meaning preventing women from protecting themselves, ensuring they can only have sex for free and denying consenting adults in private basic liberty. We can do better than that. Ask the Supreme Court.
http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/20...ey-results-a-message-from-terri-jean-bedford/
Posted on 2014/06/03
The survey is a scam. I say that despite the fact that the respondents agreed with us that the sale of sex should remain legal. The respondents were also not decisively against purchase of sex or in favour of charging all the associates of sex workers. So even this rigged survey, assuming we are being correctly informed about the response, does not give clear direction to the government. I say the survey was rigged and a scam for a number of reasons. Here are some of them. For one, who drew up the questions? Why a question asking if the government should tell consenting adults what they can do in private for money? Why wasn’t there a question asking what should be included in the definition of a sex act or sex? Why wasn’t there a question about which As to criminalizing the purchase of sex, I am including below an open letter from many leading Canadian intellectuals familiar with the issues at hand. I ask you to read the letter. Look as well at who received it and who sent it. It should convince you that if the government does introduce the so-called Nordic approach it will ensure that Mr. Harper and his ministers will be seen as cowards only looking out for themselves by doing what organized crime wants them to do: meaning preventing women from protecting themselves, ensuring they can only have sex for free and denying consenting adults in private basic liberty. We can do better than that. Ask the Supreme Court.
http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/20...ey-results-a-message-from-terri-jean-bedford/
On June 2, Justice Minister Peter MacKay wrote on Twitter that those survey results would be “taken into account” as the government drafts new legislation on prostitution.
Pacey emphasized that whether laws penalize sex workers or their clients, the health and safety implications for the former group are largely the same.
“We are seeing a different form of criminalization that will create and replicate the same harms that we saw before [the Bedford decision],” Pacey said. “From a human-rights perspective and from a sex-workers safety perspective, we would hope they would not do that.”
If the Conservative government does, she continued, the BCCFE and Pivot reports point to how such laws could be challenged in court.
“Pivot Legal Society is certainly committed to litigating this if we have to,” Pacey said.
http://www.straight.com/news/656436...aws-targeting-clients-likely-unconstitutional
Pacey emphasized that whether laws penalize sex workers or their clients, the health and safety implications for the former group are largely the same.
“We are seeing a different form of criminalization that will create and replicate the same harms that we saw before [the Bedford decision],” Pacey said. “From a human-rights perspective and from a sex-workers safety perspective, we would hope they would not do that.”
If the Conservative government does, she continued, the BCCFE and Pivot reports point to how such laws could be challenged in court.
“Pivot Legal Society is certainly committed to litigating this if we have to,” Pacey said.
http://www.straight.com/news/656436...aws-targeting-clients-likely-unconstitutional
The new prostitution bill is set to be introduced today... What will Bedford do now?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-prostitution-bill/article18959356/
the house will meet today at 2pm
the house will meet today at 2pm
A question.... and sorry if it is stupid question.
When they produce this Bill in the Commons today does that mean it becomes law either today or tomorrow, or within the very near future? Or do they have to go through more steps before it becomes law? This is where I am confused and not sure of.
When they produce this Bill in the Commons today does that mean it becomes law either today or tomorrow, or within the very near future? Or do they have to go through more steps before it becomes law? This is where I am confused and not sure of.
Nothing will become law if an injunction is filed with the SCC to have the bill set aside until the courts can review it. Remember the SCC just came down with their decision, a new bill has to fit within the framework of what the SCC just decided on, so file an injunction and have the bill set aside.
I believe Bedford should be at the SCC today with the cameras rolling. This fight is far from over folks.
I believe Bedford should be at the SCC today with the cameras rolling. This fight is far from over folks.
Could Bedford file the Injunction with the Supreme Court today?
The Supreme Court has already made a ruling, an Injunction could be filed TODAY against the government proposing a new bill that would contravene what the SCC has already ruled.
It wouldn't take 5 years to have this considered by the SCC, nonsense. That would only apply had the SCC not already made their decision, in this case they've already ruled and an injunction would be filed to set aside the new bill until and unless proper consultation is done, hearings, subcommittees with the steakholders, not just with church groups and jealous women...
Bedford has grounds for filing an Injunction with the SCC. The Government has not consulted with steakholders, there have been no hearings, subcommitees, ect. before this Nordic Law bill was introduced, unlike other bills the government has tabled that were precluded with months of hearings and subcommittees.
File an injunction, set the bill aside for one year so the Supreme Court can rule if it's Constitutional and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bedford should file the Injunction this afternoon. Is she in Ottawa today?
The Supreme Court has already made a ruling, an Injunction could be filed TODAY against the government proposing a new bill that would contravene what the SCC has already ruled.
It wouldn't take 5 years to have this considered by the SCC, nonsense. That would only apply had the SCC not already made their decision, in this case they've already ruled and an injunction would be filed to set aside the new bill until and unless proper consultation is done, hearings, subcommittees with the steakholders, not just with church groups and jealous women...
Bedford has grounds for filing an Injunction with the SCC. The Government has not consulted with steakholders, there have been no hearings, subcommitees, ect. before this Nordic Law bill was introduced, unlike other bills the government has tabled that were precluded with months of hearings and subcommittees.
File an injunction, set the bill aside for one year so the Supreme Court can rule if it's Constitutional and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bedford should file the Injunction this afternoon. Is she in Ottawa today?
