Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[canada-man]

HALIFAX - Justice Minister Peter MacKay says he's open to amending the federal government's proposed prostitution law.
The minister says he's looking forward to taking part in committee hearings in Ottawa that will review the bill, starting Monday.
MacKay says the Conservative government is open to constructive changes, but he says the bill is constitutionally sound and adequately responds to a Supreme Court decision that recently struck down parts of the existing law.

He says the committee is under pressure to act quickly because the court ruling stipulates that a new law must be in place within a year, which is why hearings are being held in the summer.
The bill criminalizes the purchase of sexual services, targets those who benefit from prostitution and outlaws the sale of sex near schools and other places where children gather.
Some sex trade workers and their supporters have argued the bill will leave prostitutes more open to violence because it will force them to move to more isolated areas.


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/peter-...osed-prostitution-law-1.1897918#ixzz36RTEV9lj

 

[DigitallyYours]

Well, here's some utter BS. According to Joy Smith's website, she's replacing Patrick Brown on the Justice Committee.

http://www.joysmith.ca/main.asp?fxoid=FXMenu,10&cat_ID=27&sub_ID=135&sub2_ID=95

On that same webpage, she even encourages people to write to the committee using a support C-36 template. She apparently claims to have helped write the bill. What kind of crap is that? So, the people who draft the legislation can lobby for it and then review it too? That's hardly checks and balances at work.

Just to clarify, the Ministry of Justice drafted the Bill. The Ministry is already providing witness testimony for the Committee, including MacKay himself. Dechert and Goguen are both Parliamentary Secretaries to the Minister of Justice and on the Committee, so there's certainly enough Ministry of Justice representation on the Committee already. The drafters of the bill are already on the committee and if that represents a conflict of interest, I suppose it is just the way it works on Parliament hill.

I recall reading somewhere that Joy Smith had a hand in drafting the bill. I think it was on that facebook event because I can't find the text of it anymore. I don't think she wrote the bill herself or anything, but she claims to have played a part in it.

Her participation on the committee is technically no worse than having Dechert and Goguen on it. All of them are partial and biased.

What is outrageous is the degree of her bias. She has spent years lobbying for this kind of thing. That she provides a pro-C36 template to write into the committee is beyond ridiculous. Her mind is not open to opposing ideas. That's why she is not a good candidate to be on the committee.

 

[canada-man]

this is spreading like fire on twitter under #c36

 

[DigitallyYours]

This might represent a chance to derail the legislation. Someone needs to file some sort of injunction alleging reasonable apprehension of bias. This should either get her off the committee or delay the hearings. Hopefully, one of the pro C-36 lobbyists with a lawyer can do something.

 

[DigitallyYours]

this is spreading like fire on twitter under #c36

I just took a look. I can't believe no one is commenting on the fact that she is actually encouraging people to write in to the committee using a pro-C36 template!

 

[GPIDEAL]

Well, here's some utter BS. According to Joy Smith's website, she's replacing Patrick Brown on the Justice Committee.

http://www.joysmith.ca/main.asp?fxoid=FXMenu,10&cat_ID=27&sub_ID=135&sub2_ID=95

On that same webpage, she even encourages people to write to the committee using a support C-36 template. She apparently claims to have helped write the bill. What kind of crap is that? So, the people who draft the legislation can lobby for it and then review it too? That's hardly checks and balances at work.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[MPAsquared]

I just took a look. I can't believe no one is commenting on the fact that she is actually encouraging people to write in to the committee using a pro-C36 template!

I wish I knew a hacker who could change that to an anti-36 form! This is just too much! Something must be done!

 

[Fallsguy]

I wish I knew a hacker who could change that to an anti-36 form! This is just too much! Something must be done!

Feel free to use the letter I sent to each member of the Justice Committee as a template.



I began each letter :
To the Honourable ------ , Member of Parliament for ---- :

Dear MP ----
I ask that as a member of the Justice Committee examining Bill C-36 you will give serious consideration to the following. I don't flatter myself that I'm the only person writing with this point of view or even that my letter will be picked out among thousands of submissions. But, I have a voice and I will use it.


This legislation is not just unconstitutional and will almost certainly be struck down in the courts, but It is also unethical and immoral.

It will put all sex workers directly in harm’s way.

In the Supreme Court’s unanimous Bedford decision it was clearly pointing towards decriminalization. Not this snarling mean spirited piece of legislation.

Please do not pass this without, at least, major revisions, or withdraw it. Please do not let this bill stand and pass into law as is.

In Canada, we pride ourselves as a society based on tolerance, inclusiveness and respect for all. The recent Gay Pride celebrations in Toronto would certainly attest to this. Yet our governemnt is proposing a law that would take away these rights to a segment of our society and put them directly in harms way.

The new law is all about legislating morality, not about protecting women's rights, nor about freedom of choice. It simply criminalizes prostitution once again.

If this becomes law sex workers will be beaten, robbed, raped, strangled, and yes, killed, as good decent law abiding men leave the field to the real perverts and sickos. For what? So this government can score some kind of ideological point. It's the wrong thing to do. It's the wrong path to follow.

Thank You for your time and consideration,

MY first two initials and my last name.

I also made a few tweaks to each non Con member where applicable. For example to Francoise Boivin, the NDP's justice critic, I wrote "I know that you and your party are against this badly flawed piece of legislation and I have heard you and your leader speak out eloquently and passionately against bill C-36." Words to that effect.

It took me less than an hour to send an email to each of the members of the Committee.
Good luck fellow terbites.

 

[Fallsguy]

HALIFAX - Justice Minister Peter MacKay says he's open to amending the federal government's proposed prostitution law.
The minister says he's looking forward to taking part in committee hearings in Ottawa that will review the bill, starting Monday.
MacKay says the Conservative government is open to constructive changes, but he says the bill is constitutionally sound and adequately responds to a Supreme Court decision that recently struck down parts of the existing law.

He says the committee is under pressure to act quickly because the court ruling stipulates that a new law must be in place within a year, which is why hearings are being held in the summer.
The bill criminalizes the purchase of sexual services, targets those who benefit from prostitution and outlaws the sale of sex near schools and other places where children gather.
Some sex trade workers and their supporters have argued the bill will leave prostitutes more open to violence because it will force them to move to more isolated areas.


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/peter-...osed-prostitution-law-1.1897918#ixzz36RTEV9lj

I wonder what kind of amendments. Like changing "Purchasers of sexual services" to just "perverts."
I also wonder if the Cons are at all surprised at the firestorm of controversy this bill has caused.

 

[TeasePlease]

She's listed in the Associate Member roster. Also there are many other MPs listed as associate members as well.

I guess we will see next week, although I doubt she would say she is on the committee if she is not. Perhaps she got herself onto the committee just for this bill. It wouldn't surprise me if she used every political favour she had to get herself on it.

We need mass outrage about this. She's not impartial!

she's a politician, not a judge. Lol.

theres no requirement to be impartial.

Plus, she's swapping seats with another Con in a committee that's stacked with Cons.

 

[TeasePlease]

Full witness list here:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...=houseposting&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2

Peter Mackay
Department of Justice Senior Officials
Walk with Me Canada Victim Services
Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform
Criminal Lawyers' Association
Janine Benedet, Associate Professor, UBC
John Lowman, Professor, Simon Fraser University
Government of Manitoba, Minister of Justice and Attorney General
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle
Sex Trafficking Survivors United
Maggie's: The Toronto Sex Workers Action Project
BridgeNorth
Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work Educate & Resist (POWER)
Calgary Police Service
Stella, l'amie de Maimie
Jose Mendes Bota, member of European Parliament, General Rapporteur on Violence Against Women
London Abused Women's Centre
Native Women's Association of Canada
Rising Angels
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Sisters Inside
Christine Bruckert, Professor, University of Ottawa
SIM Canada
Canadian Women's Foundation
Privot Legal Society
Ed Smith / Linda Smith
Adult Entertainment Association of Canada
Mothers against Trafficking Humans
Sex Professionals of Canada
York Regional Police
Gunila Ekberg, University of Glasgow School of Law Barrister & Solicitor
Sextrade101
Chris Atchison, Research Associate, University of Victoria
Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity (REED)
Georgia Lee Lang
Jeanne Sarson / Linda MacDonald
Exploited Voices Now Educating
Northern Women's Connection
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
PACE Society
Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution
Hope for the Sold
Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter
Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto
u-r- home
Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation
Defend Dignity, The Christian and Missionary Allianace
Servants Anonymous Society of Calgary
PEERS Victoria
Gwendoline Allison, Foy Allison Law Group
Kyle Kirkup, SJD Candidate, University of Toronto Faculty of Law
Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
Ratanak International

Wow, talk about stacking the deck. At least AEAC got in there. I'm sure they'll be their usual articulate, persuasive self.

 

[DigitallyYours]

For those keeping score (NOTE: I do not guarantee the accuracy of this list, I just quickly divided it up while goggling each witness:

Pro C-36 witnesses (38):

Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution
Calgary Police Service
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres
Canadian Women's Foundation
Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation
Christine Bruckert, Professor, University of Ottawa
Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle
Defend Dignity, The Christian and Missionary Allianace
Department of Justice Senior Officials
Ed Smith / Linda Smith
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Exploited Voices Now Educating
Georgia Lee Lang
Government of Manitoba, Minister of Justice and Attorney General
Gunila Ekberg, University of Glasgow School of Law Barrister & Solicitor
Gwendoline Allison, Foy Allison Law Group
Hope for the Sold
Janine Benedet, Associate Professor, UBC
Jeanne Sarson / Linda MacDonald
Jose Mendes Bota, member of European Parliament, General Rapporteur on Violence Against Women
London Abused Women's Centre
Mothers against Trafficking Humans
Native Women's Association of Canada
Northern Women's Connection
Peter Mackay
Ratanak International
Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity (REED)
Rising Angels
Servants Anonymous Society of Calgary
Sex Trafficking Survivors United
Sextrade101
SIM Canada
Sisters Inside
u-r- home
Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter
Walk with Me Canada Victim Services
York Regional Police

Not sure (1)

BridgeNorth (probably pro)

Anti C-36 (16)

Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto
Adult Entertainment Association of Canada
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
Chris Atchison, Research Associate, University of Victoria
Criminal Lawyers' Association
John Lowman, Professor, Simon Fraser University
Kyle Kirkup, SJD Candidate, University of Toronto Faculty of Law
Maggie's: The Toronto Sex Workers Action Project
PACE Society
PEERS Victoria
Pivot Legal Society
Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work Educate & Resist (POWER)
Sex Professionals of Canada
Stella, l'amie de Maimie



Basically, it seems like they invited just about every abolitionist group in Canada and even some European and Australian abolitionists too. They're really going after the prostitution = violence against women angle. I think Joy Smith just pulled up her rolodex and gave everyone a free trip to Ottawa.

The two police services being invited are the Calgary police, who have already stated publicly that they are pro C-36 and YRP.

What is missing here are the voices of the thousands of women who have gone into sex work by choice and used it as a financial stepping stone. Indoor sex workers don't typically go to these SW advocacy groups like maggie's, so the stories of the indoor escorts, the type more commonly found on terb, may be lost. I understand the need to maintain anonymity and privacy. But with this witness list, the abolitionists will probably win since they will be able to shout the loudest.

They've invited Ed/Linda Smith, whose daughter was apparently murdered after becoming a prostitute. Sad, but you'd think there would be at least one live escort witness who could tell a positive story to counter-balance.

 

[DigitallyYours]

she's a politician, not a judge. Lol.

theres no requirement to be impartial.

Plus, she's swapping seats with another Con in a committee that's stacked with Cons.

No requirement to be impartial. But for the sake of democracy, a lack of bias would be nice.

 

[MPAsquared]

For those keeping score (NOTE: I do not guarantee the accuracy of this list, I just quickly divided it up while goggling each witness:

Pro C-36 witnesses (38):

Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution
Calgary Police Service
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres
Canadian Women's Foundation
Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation
Christine Bruckert, Professor, University of Ottawa
Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle
Defend Dignity, The Christian and Missionary Allianace
Department of Justice Senior Officials
Ed Smith / Linda Smith
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Exploited Voices Now Educating
Georgia Lee Lang
Government of Manitoba, Minister of Justice and Attorney General
Gunila Ekberg, University of Glasgow School of Law Barrister & Solicitor
Gwendoline Allison, Foy Allison Law Group
Hope for the Sold
Janine Benedet, Associate Professor, UBC
Jeanne Sarson / Linda MacDonald
Jose Mendes Bota, member of European Parliament, General Rapporteur on Violence Against Women
London Abused Women's Centre
Mothers against Trafficking Humans
Native Women's Association of Canada
Northern Women's Connection
Peter Mackay
Ratanak International
Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity (REED)
Rising Angels
Servants Anonymous Society of Calgary
Sex Trafficking Survivors United
Sextrade101
SIM Canada
Sisters Inside
u-r- home
Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter
Walk with Me Canada Victim Services
York Regional Police

Not sure (1)

BridgeNorth (probably pro)

Anti C-36 (16)

Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto
Adult Entertainment Association of Canada
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
Chris Atchison, Research Associate, University of Victoria
Criminal Lawyers' Association
John Lowman, Professor, Simon Fraser University
Kyle Kirkup, SJD Candidate, University of Toronto Faculty of Law
Maggie's: The Toronto Sex Workers Action Project
PACE Society
PEERS Victoria
Pivot Legal Society
Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work Educate & Resist (POWER)
Sex Professionals of Canada
Stella, l'amie de Maimie



Basically, it seems like they invited just about every abolitionist group in Canada and even some European and Australian abolitionists too. They're really going after the prostitution = violence against women angle. I think Joy Smith just pulled up her rolodex and gave everyone a free trip to Ottawa.

The two police services being invited are the Calgary police, who have already stated publicly that they are pro C-36 and YRP.

What is missing here are the voices of the thousands of women who have gone into sex work by choice and used it as a financial stepping stone. Indoor sex workers don't typically go to these SW advocacy groups like maggie's, so the stories of the indoor escorts, the type more commonly found on terb, may be lost. I understand the need to maintain anonymity and privacy. But with this witness list, the abolitionists will probably win since they will be able to shout the loudest.

They've invited Ed/Linda Smith, whose daughter was apparently murdered after becoming a prostitute. Sad, but you'd think there would be at least one live escort witness who could tell a positive story to counter-balance.

I'm trying!

 

[MPAsquared]

Feel free to use the letter I sent to each member of the Justice Committee as a template.



I began each letter :
To the Honourable ------ , Member of Parliament for ---- :

Dear MP ----
I ask that as a member of the Justice Committee examining Bill C-36 you will give serious consideration to the following. I don't flatter myself that I'm the only person writing with this point of view or even that my letter will be picked out among thousands of submissions. But, I have a voice and I will use it.


This legislation is not just unconstitutional and will almost certainly be struck down in the courts, but It is also unethical and immoral.

It will put all sex workers directly in harm’s way.

In the Supreme Court’s unanimous Bedford decision it was clearly pointing towards decriminalization. Not this snarling mean spirited piece of legislation.

Please do not pass this without, at least, major revisions, or withdraw it. Please do not let this bill stand and pass into law as is.

In Canada, we pride ourselves as a society based on tolerance, inclusiveness and respect for all. The recent Gay Pride celebrations in Toronto would certainly attest to this. Yet our governemnt is proposing a law that would take away these rights to a segment of our society and put them directly in harms way.

The new law is all about legislating morality, not about protecting women's rights, nor about freedom of choice. It simply criminalizes prostitution once again.

If this becomes law sex workers will be beaten, robbed, raped, strangled, and yes, killed, as good decent law abiding men leave the field to the real perverts and sickos. For what? So this government can score some kind of ideological point. It's the wrong thing to do. It's the wrong path to follow.

Thank You for your time and consideration,

MY first two initials and my last name.

I also made a few tweaks to each non Con member where applicable. For example to Francoise Boivin, the NDP's justice critic, I wrote "I know that you and your party are against this badly flawed piece of legislation and I have heard you and your leader speak out eloquently and passionately against bill C-36." Words to that effect.

It took me less than an hour to send an email to each of the members of the Committee.
Good luck fellow terbites.

So very excellent!!!!

 

[TeasePlease]

No requirement to be impartial. But for the sake of democracy, a lack of bias would be nice.

But that isn't how democracy works. As you imply in your post above, we'd rather see a massive bias going the other way (thousands of women who opt freely to engage in sexwork, etc). Winds are fierce or friendly....depending on whether they blow your sail the right way?

What would be nice is a balance of viewpoints and a frank debate without bullshit.

 

[DigitallyYours]

But that isn't how democracy works. As you imply in your post above, we'd rather see a massive bias going the other way (thousands of women who opt freely to engage in sexwork, etc). Winds are fierce or friendly....depending on whether they blow your sail the right way?

What would be nice is a balance of viewpoints and a frank debate without bullshit.

Having testimony from sex workers who have freely chosen the profession is not bias. It is presentation of evidence.

Bias is when there is a decision maker whose mind is so closed off that they have pre-judged the matter such that opposing viewpoints are not considered. No matter what evidence is presented, the outcome is the same. That's what we have here. I have no problem with Patrick Brown or any other conservative because they are probably open minded, even if party loyal. So partial is ok but you need to remain unbiased. Smith is neither.

Democracy works when we have checks and balances in place. With Smith on board, we lose some of that.

 

[canada-man]

former sexworkers are going to speak out against billc36

 

[TeasePlease]

Having testimony from sex workers who have freely chosen the profession is not bias. It is presentation of evidence.

Bias is when there is a decision maker whose mind is so closed off that they have pre-judged the matter such that opposing viewpoints are not considered. No matter what evidence is presented, the outcome is the same. That's what we have here. I have no problem with Patrick Brown or any other conservative because they are probably open minded, even if party loyal. So partial is ok but you need to remain unbiased. Smith is neither.

Democracy works when we have checks and balances in place. With Smith on board, we lose some of that.

The point of committee hearings is to get different perspectives on proposed law. The bias is not in the source of the evidence, it's the preponderance of evidence from one particular perspective that biases.

Smith is also not a decision maker, or a trier of facts. I fully agree that the committee process for C36 appears to be biased, but that bias would exist regardless of Smith's presence. Look at the witness list?!

The Committee is a subset of Parliament. Partisan politics is what defines our legislative process (for better or worse). I don't want my politicians to be neutral. I want them to have values, principles and beliefs (IMO, the only thing worse than a Joy Smith is a John Tory, who won't take a shit without running a poll.)

Democracy works when all points of view are represented (and vigorously advocated).

I'm not surprised that she finagled her way onto Justice. But it doesn't bother me either. Let her rant and rave. She says dumb shit all the time and the more she talks and dumber she looks. She can also claim the "victory" of passing this bill and suffer the consequences when it implodes.

 

[DigitallyYours]

The point of committee hearings is to get different perspectives on proposed law. The bias is not in the source of the evidence, it's the preponderance of evidence from one particular perspective that biases.

Smith is also not a decision maker, or a trier of facts. I fully agree that the committee process for C36 appears to be biased, but that bias would exist regardless of Smith's presence. Look at the witness list?!

The Committee is a subset of Parliament. Partisan politics is what defines our legislative process (for better or worse). I don't want my politicians to be neutral. I want them to have values, principles and beliefs (IMO, the only thing worse than a Joy Smith is a John Tory, who won't take a shit without running a poll.)

Democracy works when all points of view are represented (and vigorously advocated).

I'm not surprised that she finagled her way onto Justice. But it doesn't bother me either. Let her rant and rave. She says dumb shit all the time and the more she talks and dumber she looks. She can also claim the "victory" of passing this bill and suffer the consequences when it implodes.

The role of the Committee is to gather research and scrutinize the bill word for word. The people who do this should be open to the evidence presented. If they aren't, there would be no purpose in presenting the evidence. They can go straight to the analysis with their already pre-made viewpoints.

Preponderance of evidence on one side is one source of bias. Another can result from a balanced evidence presentation but weighing all evidence from one side at 100% and everything from the other side at 0%.

To correct your statement, democracy works when all points of view are represented (and vigorously advocated) AND considered fairly. What's the point of presenting all sides, if all the data from one side is then thrown out? That's Joy Smith.

Also, there's a bit of decision making going on. The committee must decide what amendments the bill needs.