That's a good idea. Thanks for the responsei have your info in a secret lists of SPs stash somewhere :eyebrows:
www.catherinetog.blogspot.com
That's a good idea. Thanks for the responsei have your info in a secret lists of SPs stash somewhere :eyebrows:
I understood that and I appreciated your response as well. My question is for you. Which way would you prefer? I knew all the indies would be perfectly fine themselves. My concern is how can they protect their client's rights?I think the mods have stated that it is fine for you to advertise your services here, as long as it is you yourself doing the advertisement, and that you conform to certain standards of language within the ads.
I'm soooo excited & proud to be a part of this coalition. Its been an eventful past 2weeks working with these amazing groups putting this together! I encourage everyone who can to come!https://nowtoronto.com/news/pressure-on-wynne-to-ask/
On December 17, the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, a coalition of sex workers and their allies will be calling on Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne to instruct police forces not to enforce the federal government's new prostitution law until its constitutionality can be tested in court.
The message will be echoed to all Canadian provincial leaders by sex worker organizations across the country. In Toronto, a press conference will be held at 11 am in the media studio at Queen’s Park.
Speakers at the event will include the Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC), Maggie's - Toronto Sex Workers' Action Project, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and COUNTERfit Women’s Harm Reduction Program (South Riverdale Community Health Centre). NOW Magazine's editor/CEO Alice Klein will also be taking part in the press conference.
“Sex workers have been abandoned by their own federal government with this new law," says SPOC legal coordinator Valerie Scott. "If our leaders truly care about making sex workers safer, they will stop criminalizing our work, our workplaces and our clients.”
Klein says the coalition has been building broad support with unions, social justice groups, and members of the academic, political and legal communities.
“In the short time that this law has been in place, tragedy is descending into people's lives," says Klein. "We are seeing vividly how the advertising provision is violating the constitutional right of sex workers to safety and security. ”
Wynne has already expressed “grave concern” that the law, which came into force December 6, "will not make sex workers safe." She's asked the province’s Attorney-General to assess the law's constitutionality, but has stopped short of following BC's lead and asking police not to enforce the law.
news@nowtoronto.com | @nowtoronto
Does anyone know when they will release their findings?Ottawa sex workers marking ‘somber’ Dec. 17 under new prostitution law
By Joe Lofaro
Metro
Updated : December 16, 2014 | 7:32 pm
http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/124...ing-somber-dec-17-under-new-prostitution-law/
As countries mark the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers on Wednesday, sex workers in Ottawa will use the occasion to condemn the Conservative government’s newly revised prostitution laws that opponents say put women at risk.
Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work, Educate, Resist (POWER) will hold an open discussion in Lowertown to discuss Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which came into effect on Dec. 6.
The controversial legislation was introduced after the Supreme Court struck down three prostitution-related laws last year.
The new law target johns and pimps and makes the purchase of sex illegal. It also bans the advertising of sexual services and prohibits communication for the purpose of prostitution near playgrounds and schools.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the federal government designed these laws to make it easier for sex workers to exit the sex trade.
But, there has been mounting pressure to challenge them.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has asked the province’s attorney general to review the constitutionality of the new laws.
And on Wednesday, sex worker groups and the publisher of Toronto’s NOW magazine are to hold a press conference at Queen’s Park to ask police forces not to enforce the new legislation until it is tested in court for its constitutionality.
Opponents say sex workers are forced to rush the screening process with clients, who fear being arrested for buying sex.
Wednesday’s event – three days shy of the one-year anniversary of the landmark Dec. 20 ruling – will serve as another call to action from sex workers and their supporters.
POWER spokesperson Frederique Chabot said it will be a “somber” Dec. 17 because Bill C-36 continues to put sex workers at risk.
“We’re a year later with a set of laws that will have to be challenged again through the court because they’re not respecting the parameters that were set by the Bedford ruling. They’re putting vulnerable populations at risk, they’re not protecting anyone,” said Chabot.
“Really, it’s just ideological positioning as opposed to fact-based research-based legislation.”
Chabot said sex workers will gather at 216 Murray St. at noon where they will also hear findings from a local study on drug use, which included data from sex workers.
MP Joy Smith Should Focus on the Constitution, Not "Pimps and Johns"
Posted: 12/18/2014 8:43 am EST
Jason Congdon is an independent researcher from Vancouver, Canada. He tweets about sexual labor and social justice at @elfeministo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jason-congdon/joy-smith-pimp-johns_b_6342278.html
MP Joy Smith's December 10 editorial declares it "appalling" that 25 members of Toronto City Council asked Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne to refer the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA) to the Ontario Court of Appeal to consider its constitutional validity. However, Smith completely ignores the councillors' constitutional concerns.
Smith attempts to reframe the topic away from PCEPA's constitutionality. Her original news release was titled "Hey Toronto Councillors -- Please Stand Up for Marginalized Women"; her published editorial on the Huffington Post Canada suggests that "Toronto Councillors Should Not Protect Pimps and Johns." Both of these titles misrepresent the councillors' aims in favor of a villains-and-victims narrative in which Smith and her allies play the heroes.
Contrary to Smith's implications, the councillors' clearly state their wish to "determine whether the contents of this new legislation are constitutional". Moreover, they explicitly indicate their desire "to promote measures that increase public safety and that materially improve the living conditions of marginalized residents".
Whereas the councillors' letter to Wynne is clear on these points, Smith's implication that the councillors aren't standing up for marginalized women seems disingenuous and her suggestion that they "protect pimps and johns" is altogether impertinent.
Smith's reply doesn't even mention the Constitution or Charter. In imposing her preferred frame of "survivors of prostitution" versus "pimps and johns," she fails to address the crucial point of the councillors' letter.
As a constitutional question, the councillors' request not only serves the interests of marginalized women; it supports all Canadians' rights. In that context, it seems irresponsible -- appalling, even -- that an MP would reply to Toronto's elected officials without even acknowledging their constitutional query. Justice Minister Peter Mackay's recent editorial also promotes the "prostitution and exploitation" frame while ignoring the Constitution and Charter.
Toronto's city councillors are hardly alone in asking these questions. The "grave concerns" Wynne expressed in referring the law to Ontario Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur echo the worries of more than 100 groups who have expressed opposition to PCEPA. Smith dismisses their concerns as "fear mongering by pro-legalization lobbyists". While ignoring important constitutional questions, she belittles the complaints of PCEPA's opponents without addressing their substance.
In contrast, both Smith's and Mackay's editorials imply broad support for PCEPA. "Law enforcement agencies, communities and women's groups have welcomed our approach," she writes. This may be true, but it's also doubtful that PCEPA's supporters represent a strong majority of Canadians, as indicated by the results of the Conservative Party's own consultation and survey.
This is not the first time Smith seems to have exaggerated Canadians' support for PCEPA. On May 5, when promoting Bill C-36 (which created PCEPA) in the House of Commons, Smith claimed to possess 55,000 postcards supporting her position. This refers to a postcard campaign she coordinated with three allied groups: London Abused Women's Centre, Sex Trade 101, and EVE. "There are 36,000 signatures on petitions and over 50,000 signatures on postcards," she reiterated in Parliament on June 12.
However, just four days later, on June 16 -- just after Bill C-36 passed second reading -- Smith's office issued a news release, which says:
In just four days, 36,000 signatures became 20,000, while 50,000 postcards were reduced to 10,000. Which version of Smith's accounting are we to believe? Were the numbers she presented to parliament accurate? If not, how does she explain the numbers she reported twice in the House of Commons?
If Smith and her Conservative Party colleagues expect Canadians to support PCEPA, we need honest answers to the constitutional questions as well as accurate information about public opinion consultations deployed to promote the law. Changing the subject to ignore these questions clouds the conversation; this serves nobody's interests.
Finally, Smith has now re-published her editorial as a petition on the Conservative Party web site. The petition reiterates Smith's typical tropes, concluding with a leading prompt: "Pimps and Johns are criminals -- sign if you agree".
Smith clearly values these postcard campaigns and online petitions, but Canadians would be better served if she would stop ignoring constitutional questions and begin accurately accounting for public support and opposition regarding PCEPA.
Wow. That is such a confident statement! Really fascinating to see the public response to the crazy legislation!!A Message From Terri-Jean Bedford
Posted on 2014/12/19
http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/2014/12/19/a-message-from-terri-jean-bedford/
While I hope she's right, it remains to be seen how the various police forces across the country will respond to the legislation. Has anyone heard thoughts about enforcement priorities on the east coast?A Message From Terri-Jean Bedford
Posted on 2014/12/19
I want to congratulate and express my profound gratitude to sex workers and others across Canada for making any significant implementation of Bill C-36 unlikely. We have fought long and hard to expose the old laws as unfair, and they were finally invalidated.
It is obvious now that any significant attempts to enforce Bill C-36 will fail. Major police forces and premiers do not want to enforce the legislation. Any attempts at implementation will cause controversy and only speed the end of such attempts.
Let's hope she pushes for judicial review.A spokeswoman for Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur said, “All I can tell you at the moment is that we have heard considerable concern about the constitutionality of the new law and as a result, we are reviewing the legislation.”
http://m.mississauga.com/news-story...-ontario-to-delay-applying-prostitution-bill/
St John's & Halifax released statements denouncing the new law. I believe reverndy posted links in this thread, might be a few pages back.While I hope she's right, it remains to be seen how the various police forces across the country will respond to the legislation. Has anyone heard thoughts about enforcement priorities on the east coast?
So, does that mean we're screwed?TORONTO -- Premier Kathleen Wynne says Ontario will follow the rules of the new federal prostitution law, even though she's worried it may violate the Constitution and put sex workers at greater risk.
"The position we're taking is that we'll follow the rule of law, the law that's in place," Wynne said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "But I have asked the attorney general to look at the potential of unconstitutionality and to give us some options in terms of what we might do going forward."
Wynne issued a statement the day after the new law came into effect Dec. 6, saying she was worried it would not make sex workers safer, and was openly critical of Bill C-36 in an interview this week.
"I do not believe we should be in the business of passing statutes that in fact put women, put people in this area at more risk," she said.
Asked directly if Ontario would consider not prosecuting any prostitution charges that are laid by police, similar to what used to happen with abortion charges, Wynne said she'd leave that to the courts.
"That will be up to the judicial system, but we are going to be following the procedures that are in place as a result of the law," she said.
A coalition of sex trade workers and their supporters called on Wynne to not enforce the law, which criminalizes paying for sex, communicating for sex or advertising sex services.
"It would be strange, it seems to me, if the premier, having expressed grave concerns about whether the law is constitutional precisely because of the risk of harm that it poses to sex workers, would then go ahead and say 'we're going to enforce it in the meantime,"' said Richard Elliott of the Canadian HIV/AIDS legal Clinic. "Our unanimous message is: you should not be enforcing the law."
Akio Maroon of Maggie's Sex Workers Action Project said many customers won't give their names or phone numbers for verification purposes now that they can be charged with buying sex, making it hard for prostitutes to pre-screen clients.
"This law not only opens the door, but the window and spread the welcoming mat for all sexual predators to feast on the lives of sex workers," said Maroon. "We are calling for full decriminalization, and in the absence of that, we're calling on Ontario to not engage in actively arresting our clients or harassing our women on the streets."
Valerie Scott of Sex Professionals of Canada said the federal Conservative government is mistaken if it thinks it can legislate an end to prostitution.
"To have our police run around like Keystone Cops arresting consenting adults for having sex is something right out of the 19th century," said Scott. "That would be laughable except for the catastrophic harm that it will cause."
Many sex workers are university students who work out of apartments, and are not street savvy, and will be at greater risk by not being allowed to advertise, added Moon.
"If (Justice Minister) Peter MacKay is forcing these sex workers out on the streets and they do not have the street smarts or street skills to survive, we are putting them at risk of greater harm," she said.
Wynne said she didn't want to comment on the advertising ban or other provisions of the new prostitution law other than to say she wants to hear the attorney general's options for the province.
"I'm not going to wade into the substance of it because I'm not an expert, but I've asked our experts to look at the law," she said.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/wynn...-despite-her-concerns-1.2156168#ixzz3MO4kfVkR