Bill C-36 tabled (New Prostitution Law)

[AK-47]

The Bill will probably come out of the Committee with suggestions for modifications; maybe some will be substantial. This will be an opportunity for groups with a vested interest in the Bill to come and express their views. Groups such as POWER want to be heard then.

At the very least, the discussions should flesh out all the problems with the Bill. I think the Tories fear that it will get bogged down there.

Because of that, I have read in La Presse (a Montreal newspaper) that the Tories plan to have the Committee sit all summer to make sure that the subsequent steps can go through on time, once the Session resumes this Fall.

As for the 3rd reading, I believe that the Bill will go through and move to the Senate, although I think the Tories' Whip will have to apply a lot of pressure on some MPs as it appears many would have preferred complete criminalization of prostitution:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ays-prostitution-law-a-failure-on-all-counts/

And what are the odds the SCC intervenes and stops this bill before it passes and becomes law??

 

[dogpile]

In a post Bill C-36 environment, maybe writing a negative review about an unscrupulous SP could cause a backlash but we might have to be more cautious as to our identities, etc.

But before anything changes, you could've written that negative review. If she retaliated like you say, that would've been more troublesome for her. (If you're attached, please be more discreet with your identity or contact info. Use a throw-away phone.)

The risk is too much. I figure it this way: If she had it in her to rob me blind...to what extent will
she go to try and ruin my life? Women are like that: they have no compunctions in destroying you.

Fact is: Escorts by default are street-smart, whether they like admit it or not, they know the pimps, the
drug dealers, the violent hustlers, even gun toting killers. Who do you know? If the shit hits
the fan, do you think you can protect yourself against a frickin' gang?

CASE IN POINT: I onetime saw a nice incall, sweet girl...as soon as I left, I saw three guys who looked like total
gangsters walking down the hallway towards where I came from...it's obvious they were
all waiting in the stairwell as I boned this chick.

Imagine if she tried robbing me and I resisted? These thugs could have easily beaten/robbed me and hell...the law's
on the hooker's side, so it's jail time for me.​

My point being: For every one negative review, there's a whole bunch unwritten by guys simply
too concerned about allowing their privacy to be violated.

This new law will make extortion far easier, and I guarantee you this: Hookers love the easy way rather than
the hard way to earn their $$. That's why they are in this business to begin with.

Now it will be a hundred times easier for them to simply take your money and leave the room
with your pants down.

Complain? To who? YOU BROKE THE LAW PERVERT.


It's actually better if I was outed as 'gay' than seeing f'ing hookers. That's the society we live in today.

 

[legmann]

And what precisely, besides self-delusion and wishful thinking, leads you to believe that the Liberals and NDP do not support this bill?

Common sense (and the opinion of several political analysts who've already weighed in) would tell you that the opposition cannot possibly agree outright with anything the PC attempt to pass.

The NDP and Liberals might have proposed the same - that is moot - but politically and strategically right now, they have little choice but to publicly oppose. And when they do, it will be used against them by the PC to paint them in a negative light.

 

[AK-47]

None, unless the Government submits to the SCC the Bill for review. Something which MacKay said won't be happening.

Even then, there is no guarantee that the SCC would declare the Bill unconstitutional

Great, so basically we're fucked.

Only hope now is LE wont bother going after escort agencies, and just focus on SW's, MP's and NOW magazine ads

 

[legmann]

Only hope now is LE wont bother going after escort agencies, and just focus on SW's, MP's

We can hope. If that is the case, it will be little different (in terms of enforcement) from the scenario we face under the current laws.

 

[AK-47]

We can hope. If that is the case, it will be little different (in terms of enforcement) from the scenario we face under the current laws

Yeah, and it won't be much different from the US as well. For the most part they leave escort agencies alone, although occassionally they do get popped

 

[jamestheother]

The risk is too much. I figure it this way: If she had it in her to rob me blind...to what extent will
she go to try and ruin my life? Women are like that: they have no compunctions in destroying you.

Fact is: Escorts by default are street-smart, whether they like admit it or not, they know the pimps, the
drug dealers, the violent hustlers, even gun toting killers. Who do you know? If the shit hits
the fan, do you think you can protect yourself against a frickin' gang?

CASE IN POINT: I onetime saw a nice incall, sweet girl...as soon as I left, I saw three guys who looked like total
gangsters walking down the hallway towards where I came from...it's obvious they were
all waiting in the stairwell as I boned this chick.

Imagine if she tried robbing me and I resisted? These thugs could have easily beaten/robbed me and hell...the law's
on the hooker's side, so it's jail time for me.​

My point being: For every one negative review, there's a whole bunch unwritten by guys simply
too concerned about allowing their privacy to be violated.

This new law will make extortion far easier, and I guarantee you this: Hookers love the easy way rather than
the hard way to earn their $$. That's why they are in this business to begin with.

Now it will be a hundred times easier for them to simply take your money and leave the room
with your pants down.

Complain? To who? YOU BROKE THE LAW PERVERT.


It's actually better if I was outed as 'gay' than seeing f'ing hookers. That's the society we live in today.

I really want to disagree with these disagreeable comments. The problem is that even though they are crudely written, they are not unrealistic. The law that criminalizes the purchase of sexual services puts the buyer at significant risk of abuse and extortion. Most men here are trying to get their head (that's the big one)around this new reality.

As for the "gay" comment, the other reality is that gays fought for their sexual rights. The safest place to have public sex, commercial or otherwise, is in a gay bathhouse. It would be so much easier to be gay. There will never be a raid again on a gay bathhouse even if straight people were having sex there. Hmmm?

JTO

 

[legmann]

I really want to disagree with these disagreeable comments. The problem is that even though they are crudely written, they are not unrealistic. The law that criminalizes the purchase of sexual services puts the buyer at significant risk of abuse and extortion. Most men here are trying to get their head around this new reality.

Granted, but that risk will be most significant when the buyer himself is taking unnecessary risk - trolling BP, seeing unknown/untested providers, etc. Yes, those days of thrill-seeking may well be over. But, I highly doubt anyone sticking to well-reviewed, long-established SP's in this for the log haul is going to find themself in any kind of scenario as described above.

 

[SkyRider]

Under Bill C-36 would that 70 year old Ottawa man who married his SP be arrested and thrown in jail?

 

[dogpile]

So why people in this board are blaming Bedford because she fought for the rights of sex workers and their clients ?

Bedford did not fight for the rights of 'clients', she didn't know what the fuck she was 'fighting' for. The problem was: She like most activists
don't really talk to anyone outside their comfort zone, if she did...many would have told her the dire consequences and to simply LET IT GO.

We need to blame Bedford for this, and to make it loud and clear to her that we are all royally fucked because of her stupidity.


Harper/MacKay are simply playing by the 'new rules' the SCC layed out.

thank you activists.

 

[elise]

As for the "gay" comment, the other reality is that gays fought for their sexual rights. The safest place to have public sex, commercial or otherwise, is in a gay bathhouse. It would be so much easier to be gay. There will never be a raid again on a gay bathhouse even if straight people were having sex there. Hmmm?
JTO

So why people in this board are blaming Bedford because she fought for the rights of sex workers and their clients ?

The gays fought discrimination, persecution and abuse by the Toronto Police. It wasn't really a fight for sex, other than the fact it was the sexual orientation that makes it an intricate part of their battle.

Here is a good summary of what happened…
http://torontoist.com/2011/06/historicist_raiding_the_bathhouses/

The TPS were hideous in their behaviour and police brutality. The cops were taken to task for that and it left them with a black eye. This is the main reason why police will not touch the gays again. Its not politically correct to discriminate against a minority especially when it involves police mistreatment on that level.

Bedford fought a different battle altogether. Its not blaming her per say, but it was that the goal was to get the law thrown out without having the foresight that if that was achieved the replacement law would not simply be decriminalization. The timing, could not have been worse with a majority government who's ideology does not support any form of prostitution.

 

[Mable]

Under Bill C-36 would that 70 year old Ottawa man who married his SP be arrested and thrown in jail?

Who knows if compassion would have prevailed but he would have broken the (new) law and would be liable to the penalties. The fact that he was extorted is irrelevant to the commission of the crime.

 

[afterhours]

Granted, but that risk will be most significant when the buyer himself is taking unnecessary risk - trolling BP, seeing unknown/untested providers, etc. Yes, those days of thrill-seeking may well be over. But, I highly doubt anyone sticking to well-reviewed, long-established SP's in this for the log haul is going to find themself in any kind of scenario as described above.

next step is sticking to long established wife

 

[Fred Zed]

I read somewhere that the money to police Bill C-36 will come from the $20 million that Mackay announced last week which doesn't leave a lot for the Church groups that supported the Bill, let alone the escorts who need to be "rescued".

 

[mandrill]

I read somewhere that the money to police Bill C-36 will come from the $20 million that Mackay announced last week which doesn't leave a lot for the Church groups that supported the Bill, let alone the escorts who need to be "rescued".

$20 million? I expect that "John School" will now be bigger and better and the official cant at the court-house will be "exploitation of women".

 

[elise]

I read somewhere that the money to police Bill C-36 will come from the $20 million that Mackay announced last week which doesn't leave a lot for the Church groups that supported the Bill, let alone the escorts who need to be "rescued".

Not long ago I got a speeding ticket with a victim fee on it (not sure who the victim is in speeding …sorry I digress).

Its entirely possible they could roll the fines collected from convicted johns back into the program for policing. More incentive for LE quota fulfilment?

 

[elise]

next step is sticking to long established wife

Why does that thought make the hair on the back of my next stand up?

 

[SkyRider]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...es_deeply_hurt_by_carson_lobbying_report.html

So, under the new law Bruce Carson would be arrested and thrown in jail?

http://aptn.ca/news/2011/04/12/harper-met-bruce-carsons-former-escort-lover-at-24-sussex-party-2/

 

[Dave - WebGuy]

I read somewhere that the money to police Bill C-36 will come from the $20 million that Mackay announced last week which doesn't leave a lot for the Church groups that supported the Bill, let alone the escorts who need to be "rescued".

When I saw that brought up, I immediately assumed that it would cost about $10 million to administer, allocate and deliver the funds.

I'm pretty sure that fund will go into things like rehab programs, awareness campaigns, retraining grants and other currently in place programs that are already available and seem more a token gesture to make the government appear sympathetic. Some jobs will get created so that they can pat themselves on the back. It's a completely self-serving announcement.

 

[scourge]

Sorry to come to this so late & if this question has already been asked, sorry again, but of the three sex industries; SPs, MPAs & dancers who will be affected the most?
Strip clubs are open areas ( even the VIPs) & liquor licenses require that LE be given unfettered access at all times so back to "air" dances, I guess?
MPs are also established in a licensed facility & from what I understand there has to be a window in all the doors & a nude woman rubbing herself allover a nude oiled-up man could only for a sexually gratifying purpose IMHO.
SPs have a closed door often in an apartment or home which would be considered a dwelling house so a warent would be required for entery , a time consuming process, from what I would think ( I don't last all that long any more so good luck getting the paperwork done before I'm showered & out the door)
So on balance I think the SPs come out on top, what do you guys think?