Bill - C36 will be debated in a few minutes http://www.cpac.ca/en

Fred Zed

Administrator
May 11, 2002
784
262
63
UP ABOVE SMILING
Bill C-36 will be debated today in the house of commons at approx. 12:15 PST/3:15 EST, you can watch it live on CPAC: http://www.cpac.ca/en/
you should also have a channel on your TV for cpac.

call your MPs to urge a free vote. Many conservatives are not in favour of this bill.
 

Bob Loblaw

New member
Dec 23, 2010
75
0
0
Did the debate happen? Did I miss it? Right now it is just MPs presenting petitions from the public NOT related to C-36.
 

susi

Sassy Strumpette
Supporting Member
Jun 27, 2008
1,501
435
83
57
@the Meat Market!!!lol
it wasn't even a debate...they did not ask any of the questions we need....and joy smith does nothing to "help" human trafficking victims or exploited sex workers....the only thing she's done is help herself....to a career on the backs of sex worker criminalization....there are over 70 missing and murded sex workers in her riding...why the fuck would we listen to her? her "vision" is already killing women in her own back yard...
 

johnsmit

Active member
May 4, 2013
1,297
16
38
i cant see any one that will say a thing aboit this bill
You wont here a single man say any thing .. Because they either have seen escorts and are being blaclmailed by the conservstives to shut the fuck up.... Or they dont want to belabled in favour of abusing women..or piss off the wife
There just is no winning here..

They have 9 days to run this to a final vote.. and dont be supried if it happen

NOW the guestion is. is this the law the SCC wanted to see..or will they just throw parts out .

But that is not the way the goverment should be make new laws.. And using the courts to determin what constitutional...
 

xraytext

Patron
Sep 8, 2013
91
1
6
Bill C-36 will be debated today in the house of commons at approx. 12:15 PST/3:15 EST, you can watch it live on CPAC: http://www.cpac.ca/en/
you should also have a channel on your TV for cpac.

call your MPs to urge a free vote. Many conservatives are not in favour of this bill.
Thanks for pointing to this. It's important on many fronts.
 

Ratbert_2008

Active member
Jul 25, 2008
441
234
43
skittering around Vancouver
I watched a bit of the second reading debate today and one of the speakers, a very nervous Jim Hillyer of Lethbridge (Conservative) said the following:

Mr. Speaker, a couple of concerns about the opposition to this bill.

A lot of the opposition is based on the assumption that the current status quo is full legalization. The sex worker's letter that he quoted, the lady was describing activities that are already illegal.

Advertising, soliciting, sexual services and doing it both online and in public are already illegal activities and so if these people are already willing to give their information during this illegal activity I'm not sure why they wouldn't be under this new legislation, this legislation actually does meet the spirit of the supreme court ruling.

They were clear in their ruling that they wanted -- that they were open and not only open but they requested that parliament seek legislation around prostitution just decriminalizing it or legalizing it all we would have to do is let the year go up and so it is clear they wanted to do something more than just get rid of all legislation.

So I would like the member to comment on this and explain how this doesn't meet the spirits of the supreme court ruling.
We know that he is wrong about advertising. And it contradicts what Peter Mackay said in Parliament on June 11:

Bill C-36 proposes two entirely new offences, which I would submit differentiates it from other models as a distinctly Canadian approach: purchasing sexual services and advertising the sale of sexual services.
Regarding the Supreme Court decision, it gave no indication that the government should do something, merely that it could.

Concluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes. The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. It will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach, reflecting different elements of the existing regime. Considering all the interests at stake, the declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.
According to Wikipedia, Mr. Hillyer "took PhD courses in constitutional law" and according to the Parliament of Canada website he is on the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
 

Pantherdash

Panther
Apr 2, 2007
2,561
235
63
Downtown Vancouver
Jim Hillyer is a religious zealot moron who wants nothing but people to see this industry the way he sees it - modern day slavery with the average age of entry at 13. This is what this idiot wrote on his facebook page yesterday.



If prostitutes were just chemical compounds like nicotine or alcohol to be abused, to which johns are addicted, your comparison might be more appropriate. But prostitutes are human beings. Their sense of feeling trapped in the sex trade, their sense of desperation and futility is not the same as being addicted to alcohol or drugs.

Sheldon Kennedy describes his years of being sexually abused by his hockey coach in his book 'Why I Didn't Say Anything.' He also describes his addiction to drugs and alcohol that resulted from his attempts to escape the horrors of his ordeal. His substance addictions were real but nowhere near being on the same plane as his sexual abuse. His advocacy today is about sexual abuse, not substance abuse.

His book is so titled because people asked him why he allowed himself to be abused for so long (from the age of 14 and 19) without ever telling anyone what was going on. He was never put in chains or locked up. He was never physically forced to return to be alone with his coach. Before you say, it's different because he wasn't an adult, consider that the average age people start to be prostitutes in Canada is 13 years old. In the case of Kennedy, no one in their right mind would say that when he turned 18 something magical happened, where he was no longer a victim but a willing participant in a relationship between consenting adults. The situation continued to be an abusive one. Even though he was legally allowed to leave and that there weren't any physical constraints, no one can reasonably say that means he wanted to be there.

Battered and abused wives are adults who often feel trapped, feel like they have no choice but to stay; even in cases where the husband doesn't threaten to hurt her worse if she leaves, we do not consider the battered wife a willing participant. I’m not saying these are the SAME as prostitution, (though I am saying prostitution is sexual and physical abuse) but offer these as examples of people who are not forced into terrible situations but are stuck there all the same. In the Bedford ruling, the Supreme Court refers to this as ‘constrained choice’ or ‘coerced choice’. (It said this in response to the federal lawyers who suggested if prostitutes didn’t feel safe being prostitutes they could just quit being prostitutes. It was their legalese way of saying, “Yeah, right.”)

The VAST majority of prostitutes have said they do not want to be prostitutes.

If the people polled believe the Hollywood image of prostitution (that it is nothing more than a free exchange among consenting adults) they are likely going to favour a different kind of legislation than people who have studied the issue - not from an armchair or a library - but on the streets, working with the people, many of them having been prostituted themselves. Public support for slavery was higher when they believed that slaves were happier, because their masters took care of them. When people like Wilberforce took people to slave ships and plantations, or when people like Stowe or Douglas published books about what slavery was really like, public opinion changed.

This Bill is based on real research and consultation with the people who know what prostitution really is. It has almost unanimous support from police officers who spend their careers trying to help people escape prostitution, and from numerous advocacy groups who exist to support society's most vulnerable. This model of legislation has been proven to improve the situation.

If there really is a small percentage of prostitutes who grew up in a well-adjusted life, with no physical, sexual or mental abuse, who after the age of 18, without coercion from anyone else who stood to benefit, freely decided to become a prostitute as a career choice (perhaps they even feel fulfilled by the service they provide), I do not believe that protecting prostitution as a legitimate career choice for this small percentage is worth the sacrifice necessary to do so - a sacrifice of at least 90% who do feel trapped, who want out, of the vast majority who begin before they are 18, of the vast majority who are coerced and often forced into prostitution. Society is told that it is okay to objectify a women in this way as long as you give her some money. Even if there is a small percentage who truly want to be there, we do not allow people to sell themselves into slavery or to sell their organs. Even if a person willingly sells himself into slavery, it is still slavery, it is still exploitation.




Panther
 

johnsmit

Active member
May 4, 2013
1,297
16
38
The preseption of ptostitution by so many that are againdt it is all ways from the lower levels..
The street worker.. drug addict.. Rape..and abussed victims that exsist out there

i have know some that started on the streeds.. ..at 15 .. Pinped out by some friend.. Or doing it to get those exspencive close and bling that the parent wont buy them..
Some have come from abus..and were raped. before they ever worked in this business..
And drug are definetly part of why they work in the business..

And then there is levrl two.. The same girl usually progress up to there. Work in agencies.. and later go indy
But also at level two..there are the single moms... Who cant get by on what theg make from social assistance..or that min wage job.
There also is the university student.. That can work two jobs and go to university do studing all at tbe same time so they work for the quick cash..
.
Some where in there there is the level 3 escort.. That love what she does..and takes the job to snother level..
They become the best of the best indy escort.. commant higher prices. that know one questions..
And can be very succesful

Of course. I dont know any that were able to sustain that success.. because there is allways something that makes them stop.

Honestly it not the idea job. no matter how much you like sex..dealing with other people and there joy and problem.. The money is the only reason most would ever continue being escorts..

But all these good intentioned people that want this kind of restrictive laws.. Never see all side..and never see how badly this will fail

There are know real solution to the human condition.. we each have to deal with it our selves in on our own yime.. If help is offered.. It still has to be acceped and usefull.. That is not allways the case. .

For any law to be as effective as they would like.. Then we have to loss our liberties.. Freedoms percribed under the charter of rights and freedom.. We can not permit that.. because the resualt is a police state... much like what is in somany Islamic countries.. We are not that narrow minded and fundamentaly corupt
Why do we vote people in to our goverment that are?
 

leoghaire

Member
Sep 9, 2009
205
0
16
if you believe all of this shit, why are you on this board?
this is directed at pantherdash
 
Last edited:

newatit

Member
Jan 31, 2011
747
9
18
So lets keep this straight, this is about the sale of sex, not about giving sex away. You have the right to sell your body, for sex, and you have at present the right to purchase it from a seller. So what if sex is free! Then this law is gone. So the challenge here is determine a way to make it appear the sex is free, but there is a commitment. so maybe next time you see an Sp you take her a couple of hundred dollars worth of groceries, or stop by the bank and pay her credit card, or pay her taxes, but give her a present with the bill so she can return it. You can go into a bank with an account number of some one and deposit money to the account. i never identified myself. I think there are a few ways around this. but it will limit the idea of drving down the street and stopping at a massage parlour on a whim.
 

summerbreeze

New member
Sep 19, 2004
1,868
5
0
something folks might be forgetting

elected officials do not vote their mind, they are there to represent their constituents. if their constituents are conservative then they should discuss, debate, vote along the lines of those who voted them into power.

this is more about what they feel their voters want vs what they may want

in Canada though, they tend to vote along party lines, they are told the way the party is leaning and rarely do they depart from party unity and only if it gets them more popularity with voters (not many principled politicians)

in the US, the elected officials are required by law to represent their constituents

so like it or not, we will get what the voters want which is democracy, or what the elected officials perceive the voters want

on highly emotional topics like this one they will tend to try and offend the least vs please the most and probably pay more attention to the female vote in this case

I suspect the topic is more volatile with women (such as wife's who hate anything that undermines their relationship with their husbands) most men would probably be indifferent

I doubt the majority of married women would be enthusiastic about more liberal prostitution laws

we live with what the majority wants, not what is necessarily right because everyone has their own version of right
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
something folks might be forgetting

elected officials do not vote their mind, they are there to represent their constituents. if their constituents are conservative then they should discuss, debate, vote along the lines of those who voted them into power.

this is more about what they feel their voters want vs what they may want

in Canada though, they tend to vote along party lines, they are told the way the party is leaning and rarely do they depart from party unity and only if it gets them more popularity with voters (not many principled politicians)

in the US, the elected officials are required by law to represent their constituents

so like it or not, we will get what the voters want which is democracy, or what the elected officials perceive the voters want

on highly emotional topics like this one they will tend to try and offend the least vs please the most and probably pay more attention to the female vote in this case

I suspect the topic is more volatile with women (such as wife's who hate anything that undermines their relationship with their husbands) most men would probably be indifferent

I doubt the majority of married women would be enthusiastic about more liberal prostitution laws

we live with what the majority wants, not what is necessarily right because everyone has their own version of right
This is a pretty rosy picture of our "democracy," even with the implied cynicism. In neither country do we live with what the majority wants; we live in an age with cynically manipulated voting to come up with what the political parties' corporate masters want. Sometimes they misfire, and the other party's masters win their agenda (unless they have sponsored both parties to hedge their bets). Politicians choices are greatly motivated by what lucrative board memberships or appointments they will get on retirement from politics more than what their constituents want. Our political systems are defined as "democracies" by our official system; they are more and more turning into oligarchies.
 

johnsmit

Active member
May 4, 2013
1,297
16
38
From now on i going to refer to escort servises as either seeking consualing from them or counseling and therapy.. what ever term we decide to use is fine.. I find that usually when i see some one. Notbi g is ever said about money when we meet or about the services i will get. Perhaps a look in the evelop.. And saying no to something.. The rest is just talk and get down to business. We know what we are their for
Some consaulting and theropy
 
Last edited:

Robert Upndown

You can call me Bob
Sep 23, 2011
1,006
374
83
I posted this in another thread, but I thought I might post here as well
A couple of questions. Why can't the ladies advertise a bake sale or wine tasting or cookies etc...
Hi I have fresh baked cookies for sale. You must pick up or I can bring them to you. Then once inside a private dwelling, do what two adults are likely to do. The cookies would be expensive, but cookies nonetheless. Once inside a private dwelling, no solicitation rules are broken and there is no law against buying cookies, or two adults having consensual sex. This is a rough outline, but why not??? Thoughts?
Bob
 

summerbreeze

New member
Sep 19, 2004
1,868
5
0
It would be hard for LE to prove anything without the testimony of the SP so in the end this legislation may just end up giving more teeth to prosecute bad johns. Not very enforceable without proof nod no proof with two consenting adults.
 

johnsmit

Active member
May 4, 2013
1,297
16
38
It seem the spelling nazis are out in force again
i fo appologize.. For the bsd spelling and grammer

In fact i was thinking because so many have such difficulty with my post..that maybe i shoild move to the over side of this debate... Start posting against prostitution and for crimilizing the johns..
I could do more damage to the goverment cause... By causeing people so much frustration at trying to read the views on why the law is good... that they will turn to tbis side..
They should of hired me to write the draft for the new bill... that would definetly fail an SCC challenge
 

Violet

New member
Dec 22, 2005
432
4
0
Vancouver
Jim Hillyer is a religious zealot moron who wants nothing but people to see this industry the way he sees it - modern day slavery with the average age of entry at 13. This is what this idiot wrote on his facebook page yesterday.



If prostitutes were just chemical compounds like nicotine or alcohol to be abused, to which johns are addicted, your comparison might be more appropriate. But prostitutes are human beings. Their sense of feeling trapped in the sex trade, their sense of desperation and futility is not the same as being addicted to alcohol or drugs.

Sheldon Kennedy describes his years of being sexually abused by his hockey coach in his book 'Why I Didn't Say Anything.' He also describes his addiction to drugs and alcohol that resulted from his attempts to escape the horrors of his ordeal. His substance addictions were real but nowhere near being on the same plane as his sexual abuse. His advocacy today is about sexual abuse, not substance abuse.

His book is so titled because people asked him why he allowed himself to be abused for so long (from the age of 14 and 19) without ever telling anyone what was going on. He was never put in chains or locked up. He was never physically forced to return to be alone with his coach. Before you say, it's different because he wasn't an adult, consider that the average age people start to be prostitutes in Canada is 13 years old. In the case of Kennedy, no one in their right mind would say that when he turned 18 something magical happened, where he was no longer a victim but a willing participant in a relationship between consenting adults. The situation continued to be an abusive one. Even though he was legally allowed to leave and that there weren't any physical constraints, no one can reasonably say that means he wanted to be there.

Battered and abused wives are adults who often feel trapped, feel like they have no choice but to stay; even in cases where the husband doesn't threaten to hurt her worse if she leaves, we do not consider the battered wife a willing participant. I’m not saying these are the SAME as prostitution, (though I am saying prostitution is sexual and physical abuse) but offer these as examples of people who are not forced into terrible situations but are stuck there all the same. In the Bedford ruling, the Supreme Court refers to this as ‘constrained choice’ or ‘coerced choice’. (It said this in response to the federal lawyers who suggested if prostitutes didn’t feel safe being prostitutes they could just quit being prostitutes. It was their legalese way of saying, “Yeah, right.”)

The VAST majority of prostitutes have said they do not want to be prostitutes.

If the people polled believe the Hollywood image of prostitution (that it is nothing more than a free exchange among consenting adults) they are likely going to favour a different kind of legislation than people who have studied the issue - not from an armchair or a library - but on the streets, working with the people, many of them having been prostituted themselves. Public support for slavery was higher when they believed that slaves were happier, because their masters took care of them. When people like Wilberforce took people to slave ships and plantations, or when people like Stowe or Douglas published books about what slavery was really like, public opinion changed.

This Bill is based on real research and consultation with the people who know what prostitution really is. It has almost unanimous support from police officers who spend their careers trying to help people escape prostitution, and from numerous advocacy groups who exist to support society's most vulnerable. This model of legislation has been proven to improve the situation.

If there really is a small percentage of prostitutes who grew up in a well-adjusted life, with no physical, sexual or mental abuse, who after the age of 18, without coercion from anyone else who stood to benefit, freely decided to become a prostitute as a career choice (perhaps they even feel fulfilled by the service they provide), I do not believe that protecting prostitution as a legitimate career choice for this small percentage is worth the sacrifice necessary to do so - a sacrifice of at least 90% who do feel trapped, who want out, of the vast majority who begin before they are 18, of the vast majority who are coerced and often forced into prostitution. Society is told that it is okay to objectify a women in this way as long as you give her some money. Even if there is a small percentage who truly want to be there, we do not allow people to sell themselves into slavery or to sell their organs. Even if a person willingly sells himself into slavery, it is still slavery, it is still exploitation.




Panther
Panther: please in future use quotation marks or quote tags [quote]like this, put quoted text here[/quote] or at least a colon after "...facebook page yesterday" :)

I was reading your post on a small screen and getting all shocked and bothered by what you said until I re-read the first paragraph and realized that you were quoting someone else.
 
Vancouver Escorts