Plato 1092 Report post Posted February 17, 2014 The Canadian Government, more specifically the Department of Justice, just launched a public consultation on "prostitution-related offences". It looks like the window will be open for one month, from today (February 17th) until March 17th. You can provide feedback via email at [email protected] or anonymously via their website, online at <http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/index.html#2014_02_17>. Bombs away... 14 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest *l**e Report post Posted February 17, 2014 Beat me to it...I was just about to post this. I feel it is extremely important for as many people from this site as possible make their opinions heard on this topic during this consultation period. Please spread the word, everybody!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Studio 110 by Sophia 150333 Report post Posted February 17, 2014 Did it:) Hope they listen to us! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jafo105 39057 Report post Posted February 18, 2014 Well I did my part and gave them my thoughts and opinions. I hope other Cerb people do the same. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metalsmith 2980 Report post Posted February 18, 2014 Was going to post it, but I see I've been beaten to it! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eric Northman 16522 Report post Posted February 18, 2014 My responses: 1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: No as long as there is no duress involved. Duress is already covered by other laws though so prostitution should not require a special case. 2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: No. For many women it can be an excellent and profitable career path. 3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain. Comment: I don't think there need to be codified rules although cities may wish to use zoning rules (like with strip clubs) to limit where bawdy houses can be located. I feel that existing loitering rules would be sufficient to keep street prostitution from being problematic. 4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: No. Existing rules cover extortion and human trafficking. Prostitutes should be able to hire assistants without fear of prosecution. 5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision? Comment: Stop being patronizing and paternalistic. Prostitutes are adults making adult choices and you can't assume that everyone doing it is somehow forced into it. Many women enjoy sex and have found that selling sexual services is a profitable and liberating way to make a living. They choose their hours, their clients, the acts they wish to provide, their fees and often can make far more money than they would at other professions. Yes, there are risks associated with this job but many other jobs have risks as well and we don't criminalize those career paths. 6. Are you are writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role: Comment: No. 7 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clutch 711 Report post Posted February 18, 2014 It is only 5 questions. Get your points in there before some church group storms it with bible passages. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canuckhooker 19202 Report post Posted February 18, 2014 I know there was mention of this in the paper this morning. Unfortunately it was a negative comment from the pro-sexwork side. It was Chris Bruckert from UofO saying that the questions were leading or biased, particularly question #4. I can see her point sort of, but I don't think it is particularly bad. I don't see it leading anyone to thinking one way or the other. We just need to get everyone we know who is against abolition or criminalization to answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted February 18, 2014 I know there was mention of this in the paper this morning. Unfortunately it was a negative comment from the pro-sexwork side. It was Chris Bruckert from UofO saying that the questions were leading or biased, particularly question #4. I can see her point sort of, but I don't think it is particularly bad. I don't see it leading anyone to thinking one way or the other. We just need to get everyone we know who is against abolition or criminalization to answer. i agreed with her points about question #4. It wants to lead you to say you do not want anyone to 'profit' off the work of sex workers, which can lead to the government putting in a law that prevents sps from paying anyone for anything. That can include advertising, incall rental, security, drivers, assistants, and stretching, to agency/massage parlours as employers. It could put SOs and family members at risk if the sp pays for anything for family members that they can't pay themselves, or if she/he is simply the family's sole income. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jafo105 39057 Report post Posted February 18, 2014 In my opinion, the way the questions are worded is not a major concern. The important thing is that the government is asking the public for input. The government knows that if any new laws do not fit with the general consensus of its citizens that the new laws will be challenged. That is the last thing the Conservative government wants. The happier the public is -- the better the Conservative government will look in the poles. And the longer the Conservative's will stay in power. The 42nd Canadian federal election is tentatively scheduled for October 19, 2015. That is my "unegimikated" take on the situation. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canuckhooker 19202 Report post Posted February 18, 2014 i agreed with her points about question #4. It wants to lead you to say you do not want anyone to 'profit' off the work of sex workers, which can lead to the government putting in a law that prevents sps from paying anyone for anything. That can include advertising, incall rental, security, drivers, assistants, and stretching, to agency/massage parlours as employers. It could put SOs and family members at risk if the sp pays for anything for family members that they can't pay themselves, or if she/he is simply the family's sole income. I am not so sure. I think it is a bit parnaoid to read intent into that question. It asks a question directly related to the "living off the avails" part of the Criminal Code that was struck down. Which is a valid question. What do you think of this is what they are asking. The follow up on exceptions, can be taken for both sides. If you answered yes, then should there be exceptions. e.g. drivers, security etc. If you answered no, should there be exceptions like "pimps". Now granted that is covered under other laws, but it is still a good way to confirm that coercion is not accepted. I don't know how else they could get a read on public opinion on that particular point without asking that question, and I can't think of too many other ways to word it that is not leading in one direction or the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlannaJohnson 3926 Report post Posted February 19, 2014 Here is the link again everybody: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/index.html#2014_02_17 And here are my answers ;) Concise I am not, but then again, I am very passionate about this topic. I will be writing to my MP as well, and to the Minister of Justice. I do sincerely encourage all of you to let the government know where you stand on these issues ;) Thank you all in advance! 1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. No please no! Lots of ordinary citizens (your fathers, brothers, fellow employees, and employers) use the services of sex workers. They do so discreetly behind closed doors in ways that do not affect other community members. Lots of ordinary citizens are in sexless relationships/marriages that would not even endure if not for the availability of sexual services. Furthermore, there are disabled individuals out there, and others with poor social skills/social anxiety, or otherwise disadvantaged in the dating market, who could get no sexual relief were it not for the services of sex workers. Consensual adult prostitution should Not be criminalized. The government does Not belong in the bedrooms of our nation. 2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. No again! We are autonomous individuals. The selling of sexual services is very similar to that of other therapeutic services, e.g. massage/body-work, even chiropractic treatments. Often hands, elbows, knees, and other body-parts are employed in the delivery of these personal services. Often there is full nudity of the client and/or partial nudity of the therapist. Yet we don't criminalize any of these services (nor should we!), and we should not criminalize ordinary Canadians who choose to use their hands/breast/mouth/genitalia in the delivery of erotic services. To criminalize an individual's autonomous use of their body is a huge infringement on human rights. Please do not take us back to the dark ages. 3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain. According to Toronto Police, there are currently 200+ incalls operating out of the city's many condo buildings. Additionally on any given day, individual sex workers or agencies rent out hotel rooms all over the city and the sex workers aka providers welcome clients there. This is all done discreetly. The clients of sex workers and the sex workers themselves value their privacy and most would not want to be seen walking in or out of a large known brothel. We also have massage parlours all over the city, many of which have become full-service operations. Even those offer a discreet and safe location for providers & clients. In my opinion, any limitations to sex work should be achieved through zoning by-laws. E.g. stand-alone brothels should be subject to the same types of zoning as the current massage parlours. Those operating out of hotels/condos should be left alone as they are currently tolerated. (Again, most have every interest to operate discreetly, but should there be any noise complaints, those should be dealt way the same way any noise complaint would be handled.) With regards to street-based sex work which still takes place in some cities across Canada, this could again be handled through zoning, by having the city designate certain streets as 'strolls.' If someone is caught soliciting in public outside of a designated stroll, they could be served with a public nuisance ticket similar to a parking ticket. We should Definitely Not criminalize these most vulnerable of citizens, which by the way only make up 5% of the total sex worker population. 4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. No again. There are professional agencies out there that are no different than a regular talent booking agent. They provide the women or men working there with a safe working location (hotel/condo), a professional web presence, professional photographs, and advertising services. For all this, they deserve a cut of the earnings in the same way an art gallery keeps 50% of the proceeds from the sale of an artist's painting. The only time a 3rd party should be criminalized is if they can be proven to engage in coercive practices (and Canada already has criminal laws against coercion.) 5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision? Please understand that prohibition doesn't work. This industry still exists all over the US, and ordinary citizens (clients & providers) have to be extra-careful and perform additional screening just to make sure neither is dealing with LE (law enforcement.) Making criminals out of ordinary citizens for no other reasons than that they were exercising autonomy of their bodies without harming anyone or disturbing other community members is pure insanity, and no way to serve the people. The 'Nordic Model' of one-sided criminalization is just as bad. Most clients are ordinary, well-behaved citizens (fellow community members.) They just want to discreetly meet their needs without causing harm or interfering with anyone. The only clients that should be criminalized are those engaging in violence/rape or theft, and I know Canada already has criminal laws against assault, rape, and theft. Blanket criminalization of all clients as per the Nordic Model, would make criminals out of ordinary well-behaved citizens. Furthermore, to avoid being caught by LE, the activity would go further 'in the shadows' and lead to the same safety concerns for sex workers as the laws found unconstitutional by the SCC. Decriminalization is the *only* sane way to go re: consensual adult prostitution, just like we have decriminalized gay sex a long time ago. Pls. also understand that the human trafficking saga is grossly exaggerated by misguided moralistic groups. In real cases of human trafficking and coercion, we already have laws in Canada that deal with these issues. 6. Are you writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role: No, but I am writing from my perspective as a self-employed independent sex worker, who has been in the industry on & off for a few years. Throughout this time, I have worked out of many hotels, and out of three different condo buildings. Before working independently, I did work for a couple of escort agencies, which provided me with a condo location to work out of, a professional web presence, and professional pictures (all things I was grateful for as I wasn't in a position to pay for these things myself at the time.) I graduated university at the top of my class. I engage in sex work out of my own volition and have never been coerced by anyone. In my experience meeting many sex workers, we have been more concerned about being criminalized by misguided laws than by any perceived harms from clients or 'pimps.' I do not deserve to be made a criminal in this great country of ours, nor do my wonderful clients who are professionals and business owners from all over Canada. I beg you to listen to the voices of sex workers and clients. Studies have been done already, e.g. http://www.johnsvoice.ca. I pray that Canada continues to be a light-house of human rights throughout the world. Sex workers and their clients deserve the same human rights as any other Canadians. Thank you for reading, and for considering my opinion. 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drlove 37202 Report post Posted February 19, 2014 Done! I sincerely hope our efforts resonate with the Government, for all our sakes... Consultation Questions 1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: No. I feel that purchasing of sexual services should not be a criminal offence as it is contrary to the recent SCC ruling which struck down Canada's existing prostitution laws. Criminalizing the purchase of sex violates section seven of the Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms since it does nothing to aid the safety of the person who is engaged in sex work. Criminalization will only relegate prostitution further into the shadows and have the effect of making it less safe for women to conduct their affairs, which rails against the spirit of the SCC's ruling. Of course, exceptions should be made for exploitation of minors and sex trafficking. However there are already current laws in place to effectively deal with these issues. 2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: No. Selling sexual services should not be a criminal offense. Exceptions should apply in cases where someone is coerced. However, where participants are engaging in sex work of their own volition, there should be no state intervention. 3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain. Comment: I feel that the health and safety of sex workers and their clients should be of paramount importance. To that end, those who engage in sex work should be afforded a safe place to conduct business, and have health access as required. Furthermore, clients should be free to purchase said legal services without impediment. 4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: No. As in other legal professions, workers have the right to hire assistants for monetary compensation. The case for willing sex workers should be no different, as anything else would be discriminatory. Sex workers should have the right to hire body guards, drivers, and other aids as they see fit. 5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision? Comment: In light of the SCC's ruling, decriminalization is the best possible option. To do otherwise would only subject participants to undue harms pursuant to a misguided ideology. Certainly, if the safety, well being and the right to conduct legal work without duress exists in all other legal professions, sex work cannot be an exception. 6. Are you are writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role: Comment: No. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Studio 110 by Sophia 150333 Report post Posted February 19, 2014 Good to see we are all on the same page! I never thought to copy paste my survey:( But yes, I see from these responds we are doing well! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoyfulC 132299 Report post Posted February 20, 2014 Just finished mine. I'm going to sit on it a couple hours before submitting. 1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. No. It should not be illegal for any adult to purchase sexual services directly from a consenting adult who will be providing those services. 2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. No. It should not be illegal for any consenting adult to sell their own sexual services to another consenting adult. 3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain. Communities should be able to penalize those who cause real problems as the result of any type of public commercial conduct. This includes littering, lewd public behaviour, harassment, and interfering with the flow of traffic. However, if street prostitutes and customers are behaving responsibly and not causing any problems, they should not be penalized on purely ideological grounds. Independent sex workers and customers should be allowed to meet in their homes, hotel rooms or premises rented for the purpose of prostitution. Multiple prostitutes should be able to work from one residence, as long as they legally reside at that residence and there are no outward signs that the residence is being used commercially (such as a sign, display visible to those outside the residence, or other indicator), and services are provided by appointment only (not on a walk-in basis). Third party walk-in operations, such as massage parlours or brothels, should exist only in properly zoned areas, should be licensed, and should be restricted to renting premises and services to independent prostitutes (not to consumers of sex services). Private clubs should be allowed to hold adult events involving prostitution. 4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Obviously, prostitutes, like anyone else in our society, should be able to use their earnings to support their families, and spend as they please. Prostitutes should be able to hire the services of others, including drivers, agents, and housekeepers. It should be illegal for any person to employ prostitutes to provide services to third parties. The potential for exploitation is too great with this model. For example, an escort agency, where the agent provides services to the prostitute, is fine. An escort service, where the operator hires and fires prostitutes, is not. A massage parlour or brothel that rents space to prostitutes, along with providing services including advertising, reception, laundry and security is fine. A massage parlour or brothel that employs prostitutes to provide sex to customers, and takes the profits off the top, giving the prostitutes no control over who they see or how they work, is not. As long as the prostitute is the customer, and can choose from among any number of service providers, exploitation will be best checked. When the prostitute is the employee, at the mercy of one employer for her livelihood, that is a situation ripe for exploitation. 5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision? Prostitution has always happened and always will happen. There is even evidence of animals engaging in prostitution. So any attempt to criminalize prostitution in order to eradicate it is doomed to fail and cause extensive damage, both to individuals and to communities. Therefore, only those aspects of prostitution which are shown to cause a real harm, either to sex workers or communities, should be targeted by the law. Lawmakers should work closely with sex workers across Canada in the writing of any new law. As with many issues, laws based on ideology or public stigma will prove disastrous. 6. Are you writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role: Nope! Just me. My credentials? Independent prostitute in Canada since 1982. 7 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrrnice2 157005 Report post Posted February 20, 2014 And for what its worth, my submitted responses to the last three questions. 4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Sex workers should have the opportunity to conduct their business in a safe and professional way by being allowed to hire support staff, whether it be drivers, body guards accountants, investment advisers, and so on. They should be allowed to lease or rent discrete premises to operate from. 5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision? The decision is rightly based on a desire to help ensure the safety of sex workers. Any law that is passed that causes the trade to be driven underground or into "hiding," will provide opportunity for exploitation and violence against sex workers. Canada already has laws that cover issues such as underage sex, slavery, illegal immigration, abuse and assault. No new law need be implemented that makes this trade illegal for consenting adults, be they sex worker or client. It should be treated as a business such as any other. Specifically, the law about bawdy houses was declared unconstitutional. This decision should be upheld to allow for sex workers to be able to conduct business in a known location that will keep them from having to go to "unknown" and potentially unsafe locations. Secondly, the law about living on the avails of prostitution was declared unconstitutional other than in "circumstances of exploitation." The exploitation factor can be addressed with existing laws in the criminal code. Finally the third law involving communicating for the purposes of prostitution should make public, as in on the street solicitation, illegal for both clients and sex workers. Communication on a personal level by various forms of media and telecommunication devices should be allowed in order for both parties to have confidence about safe encounters. 6. Are you writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role: I am writing as an occasional client whose wife has passed away who at times wishes companionship in a safe and non-threatening environment for all parties involved. Proper research will indicate I believe that many of the stereotypes that government seems to be acting upon are in fact untrue. 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cyclo 30131 Report post Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) 1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: Consensual commercial sexual services/activities between consenting adult service providers and clients should not be a criminal offence. Government has no legitimate role in criminalizing consenting adult sexual activity regardless of whether it is a commercial or non commercial transaction. Criminal law should focus on violence, threats of violence, extortion, withholding of passports/visas, illegal confinement and underage commercial sexual activity. Broadly these acts would fall under the headings of underage prostitution, human trafficking, pimping and assault. I do not support the Nordic model in which one partner (the client) in the service transaction is criminalized. While such laws have been passed elsewhere, I do not believe the Canadian constitution allows for such inequitable rights or criminal laws. I can't think of any other example in Canada where one person can be doing something legal while simultaneously another participant is deemed to be engaged in a criminal act. Any violent acts or threats etc by a client should be prosecuted just as they would be in the case of any two individuals where such harmful behaviour occurred. 2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: I do not think that consenting adults selling sexual services should be criminalized. I think everyone recognizes that sex work can never be successfully "abolished". It has and always will exist. Criminalizing homosexual sex and anal sex in the past for example was a misguided attempt to eliminate them. The desire for sex, intimacy, human contact and variety is too deep to stamp out these desires. These desires cannot always be met by accepted social convention. Sex workers (women, men and transgendered) fulfil a need and niche in the commercial market. The next question is will prohibition through criminalization of service providers make citizens in general safer and more specifically will it make sex workers safer? The Supreme Court acknowledged that providing sexual services has unique risks. The social stigma associated with providing sexual services creates a social climate which increases the risks to service providers. Criminalization only increases the stigma and the resulting risks. While much of the Supreme Court's reasoning was based upon the fact that adult prostitution is currently legal, criminalizing it will not eliminate sex work nor will it eliminate or even reduce the risks to sex workers. Criminalization will continue to keep sex work in the shadow. Sex workers who have the means and skills will continue to work using online marketing. Even nordic countries acknowledge they've made no dent in this market. Outside sex workers will be forced even further into the shadows, unsafe locations, be further alienated from law enforcement and have even less opportunity to screen clients. The Nordic model assumes that sex work is exploitation of women by men. Obviously the largest portion of the market for sexual services is male heterosexual clients and female sex workers. The Nordic model however fails to acknowledge the diversity of sex workers and their clients (male sex workers for males, women for women, women for male/female couples, men for male/female couples, transgender workers for males etc.) How can a law be adopted which supposedly targets the exploitation of women by men, yet simultaneously sweeps in many other citizens? Finally, I've met many sex workers and they do not fit the stereotype of exploited or downtrodden women. Many have university degrees, have other small businesses (accounting, design etc) and like many people have made conscious choices about how they want to make their income and how long they want to do this work. Some women, while very intelligent, have not been able to get jobs that pay living wages for a variety of reasons (education, no work experience and a mid life divorce etc.). While sex work was not their first choice of work, they are comfortable doing this work. They will continue do it if it is entirely criminalized (just as many aspects of their work are already criminalized). Will criminalization of their work in its entirety make their lives better? I recognize that some sex workers are in exploitive conditions. These people deserve protection under our criminal laws, just as any citizen does. Existing laws related to assault, extortion etc should be used for their protection and strengthened if necessary to achieve successful prosecution of exploitive pimps or clients. 3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain. Comment: The federal government does not need to be involved in specifying where sex work can or cannot occur. This is a zoning and licensing issue for Municipalities. Specifying where sex work can occur is certainly not an issue for criminal law. Municipalities currently have sufficient enabling powers to specify acceptable locations, exterior appearance, signage, concentration and separation distances form other sensitive uses etc. These decisions need to be unique for each community. No community should be given the power to ban any aspect of sex work if it remains legal and if the laws related to indoor sex work are liberalized. Public solicitation, usually on public streets remains problematic. It has social and legal issues similar to panhandling. Outdoor sex workers however should not be forced into unsafe locations which increase their potential risks. 4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: I'm answering this question, not on the basis of the assumptions implied by the phrase "prostitution of an adult", which suggests exploitation. My answer is for sex workers who are exercising free will and are making their own choices on how they want to work (independent or agency). Sex workers should be able to pay for accommodations, booking/phone services, personal assistants, marketing services, online services, legal advice, financial advice, drivers, security, clothing, sex toys, restaurants etc. Sex workers should also be able to hire agencies that manage many of these logistics on their behalf. Certainly anyone who is living with a sex worker (partner, children, friends, parents etc) should not be criminally penalized because they receive some financial benefit. Sex workers should be able to financially contribute their earnings to their families and friends just as any other wage earner in Canada can. Anyone who forces a sex worker to involuntarily "hand over" their earnings should be held criminally accountable for any for threats, extortion, intimidation, violence etc which have been used. 5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision? Comment: The Supreme Court's decision was very well reasoned, particularly in the face of an issue which has much social stigma attached to it. What stood out regarding their decision and written opinion was that it was based upon factual information and not morality. Any Federal response should also be based upon the factual information which we currently know about sex work and should avoid imposing morality upon citizens. There are many things which are considered immoral by a portion of the population (premarital sex, divorce, abortion, interethnic marriage, interfaith marriage, gay marriage, consumption of alcohol, cutting your hair, revealing clothing, working on the sabbath, using mechanical equipment etc. Canada is a secular society and should adopt laws which have a secular basis. What is a secular basis? Minimizing actual harm to our citizens and giving citizens autonomy to live their lives based upon values which may be unpopular or uncommon, provided they do not harm others. Many opponents of sex workers and their clients build straw man arguments. The sex work industry is characterized as being dominated by sex trafficking and exploitation of underage girls. These are certainly harmful behaviours, but there is no factual evidence or peer reviewed studies to support the view that these behaviours are representative of the industry. Fear mongering and decisions based upon fear mongering and inaccurate information will not result in sound law. Criminalizing clients or both clients and sex workers will only draw law enforcement attention away from harmful exploitation. Law enforcement will target easy arrests and never get to the hard undercover work required to crack down on the small proportion of trafficking and underage exploitation. The image of men and women involved in the sex work industry (as clients and providers) presented by abolitionists/prohibitionists is not representative of the majority of clients and workers in my experience. Most are ordinary people with diverse, common and ordinary backgrounds. While those participating in the sex industry will disagree with abolitionists/prohibitionists that sex work is inherently harmful, we all agree that we can find some common ground, which should be the basis for criminal law. Criminal law should continue to focus on exploitation through violence or coercion of adults and any exploitation of underage children or youth. Edited February 22, 2014 by cyclo Typo 11 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Susie 1472 Report post Posted February 22, 2014 wow, what amazing and reasoned responses!! keep up the good work cerbites!! love susie 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Emily J 172061 Report post Posted February 25, 2014 Here are a couple good resources in regards to this government survey. They provide some background info, ideas and guidelines for folks to use to form their own unique responses to the survey. These helpful guidelines were prepared by sex workers and their allies from all across the country, and are designed to inspire you to create your own personal answers. From Maggie's Toronto: http://maggiestoronto.ca/news?news_id=118 From POWER Ottawa: http://www.powerottawa.ca/CALLTOACTION.pdf 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Emily J 172061 Report post Posted March 16, 2014 Tomorrow is the last day, folks! Do it. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/index.html#2014--02--17 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest P**aq Report post Posted March 16, 2014 I just filled in the survey, but didn't think to copy and paste my answers, but needlesstosay, I concur with the thoughts of the other CERB members! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metalsmith 2980 Report post Posted April 20, 2014 Some (in mind amusing) thoughts stolen from another website on this: "Legalize it. Setup a Crown Corporation modelled on the post office to deliver the service. Get CUPE to organize the labor force with full seniority rights. Problem solved, social obligations met, worker's rights respected." and... "I say, legalise it and tax it. Legal gambling has a horrible effect on society. On the contrary, legal prostitution would reduce unwanted pregnancies, not to mention unwanted marriages. Is this whole 'Blame the John" agenda pushed by ugly feminists who realize once prostitution is legalized they will never again have a boyfriend?" 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Emily J 172061 Report post Posted June 2, 2014 Results from the online survey: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/majority-of-canadians-thinks-selling-sexual-services-should-not-be-illegal-report-1.1848419 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ice4fun 78396 Report post Posted June 2, 2014 Thanks Emily... I'm not surprised by the results the results... the government and right wing organizations have been very successful in promoting the Nordic model so people naturally went with it. I think it is very safe to assume the new law will make it illegal to purchase sexual services. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Studio 110 by Sophia 150333 Report post Posted June 2, 2014 With this, I can assume a visit to my business lawyer is in order... I will need to make some changes to my business ie: I will be the only worker here, and need to know more about " anyone who benefits" part confuses me. So does this include the person I rent space from? I suppose I may have to buy a house if that is the case. Advertising may change as well? So that it states transactions are for time spent only( in my case massage only) and no longer for sexual acts, as one would have to be in the room to prove anything at all as well as limited communication so that your not helping to build a case for reasonable cause to have my clients harassed. This will mean the gent's are going to need to read between the lines and things may not be spelled out for you as easily, so we will have to use our imagination a bit more. This seems so backwards, I mean , I represent some ladies because they do not feel safe to book and screen on their own, and now will have to decline anyone who needs the help. I feel that if remain an agency, it may make them look my way as a target, but as far as an INDY provider, well not much notice would be given to me or my clients as we have discussed another thread that they can not go policing every INDY provider, the manpower would be too much and no witnesses other then the one getting services. SIGH....HUMPHF.....here we go! 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
