Committee hearings on new prositution laws

[toban]

Excellent article - especially of interest to us "perverts"!

Good perspective, worth the read.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle19736589/

I had bookmarked this article with the intention of posting it here but you beat me to it!

The other Globe and Mail articles tied to the above post are also good information for those interested, especially this following link to an article by Tom Flanagan "The prostitution bill is a bizarre work of moral panic" which ties in to Harper’s reliance upon his and his parties evangelical roots. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/prostitution-bill-has-the-makings-of-another-moral-panic/article19256534/

[dom r]

Its the clients not the escorts who face criminalization under the new bill!

Under the proposed changes to the law, prostitution will still continue to be legal just as it was before but purchase of such services will be completely illegal which was not the situation before! This is their back-door way of trying to ban prostitution, not to correct the old law as per SCC orders. WTF?

They cannot make something that is legal illegal. If its legal for her to receive the payment for providing a sexual service then it cannot be illegal to make the payment because its legal for her to receive the payment. How else is he suppose to make the payment? Send payment to the moon or something? If she has the legal right to get paid then he has the legal right to pay her, thats all to it and it can't be any other way. Its like saying its legal to sell 18 year old female or shemale porn but illegal to buy it, its bullshit and doesn't make sense. How would those suits like it if someone made it legal to sell a suit but illegal to buy a suit? This is the most stupid bill I have ever heard of and it is unfair, unjustified, hypocrisy, trickory, two faced, and an unfair set up if men are charged. And it was thought of by over controlling, unfair and unjust law makers if this makes it into law which I don't think it will.

[rider014]

You got er!

They cannot make something that is legal illegal. If its legal for her to receive the payment for providing a sexual service then it cannot be illegal to make the payment because its legal for her to receive the payment. How else is he suppose to make the payment? Send payment to the moon or something? If she has the legal right to get paid then he must have the legal right to pay her, thats all to it and it can't be any other way. Its like saying its legal to sell 18 year old female or shemale porn but illegal to buy it, its bullshit and doesn't make sense. How would those suits like it if someone made it legal to sell a suit but illegal to buy a suit? This is the most stupid bill I have ever heard of and it is unfair, unjustified, hypocrisy, trickory, two faced, and an unfair set up if men are charged, and thought of by an unfair and unjust law maker if this makes it into law which I don't think it will.

The only sense this is supposed to make is that clients will be the criminals. People can paste all the articles and viewpoints of so called experts all they want and for the most part, the articles are bang on. This bill theoretically goes against what it is intended to do, which is to protect the sex trade workers. When this passes, LE will be instructed to hit it hard and fast. They will use the GW scare tactic and make an example out of some clients early in hopes that it will deter others from being tempted to try. Again, convictions will be difficult to achieve, but after your name, city, employer, and the bitch you took to the proms names are published and broadcasted on the news stations,(they'll make sure of that) the hopes of the government is that clients won't risk it. Will the next government scrap this new law? Don't bank on it. Common sense isn't really a strong suit for any government at any level.

[dom r]

The only sense this is supposed to make is that clients will be the criminals. People can paste all the articles and viewpoints of so called experts all they want and for the most part, the articles are bang on. This bill theoretically goes against what it is intended to do, which is to protect the sex trade workers. When this passes, LE will be instructed to hit it hard and fast. They will use the GW scare tactic and make an example out of some clients early in hopes that it will deter others from being tempted to try. Again, convictions will be difficult to achieve, but after your name, city, employer, and the bitch you took to the proms names are published and broadcasted on the news stations,(they'll make sure of that) the hopes of the government is that clients won't risk it. Will the next government scrap this new law? Don't bank on it. Common sense isn't really a strong suit for any government at any level.

Adults in suits should not tell other adults how to live their life. It seems like the suits are wanna be pimps by fining the prostitute's clients so they get a cut in the sales when such clients really cannot be charged for a crime when its legal for the women who provide a sexual service to receive payment even if such a double crossing bill passes. What are they trying to protect them from? They have a choice to tell their clients to wear a condom, there they are protected, or just don't do penetration at all and do all the other fun stuff instead, thats their choice to make not the suits. You know who the suits should protect, men and women who get married. It should be made into law that men must protect themselves by having a pre-nup so that way the wife can't commit highway robbery and take his house and income he earned himself, and women also need to be protected by those wife beaters, thats who the suits should protect.

[rider014]

This may be important!

Being that this forum as of late is more concerned about who is or isn't gay, the cons are full steam ahead while everyone here bickers about petty labels. Considering the fact that this is an escort site primarily, this could be valuable info to those wishing to see this bill at the very least amended.



Senate Committee submissions on NOW!!!!!
Without a moment to breathe in between the stages of Bill C36, the Senate Committee is holding public hearings as part of its pre-study on September 9, 10 and 11th, and potentially into the following week depending on how many witnesses there are.


So, its time to get in your recommendations for people to speak before Senate AND your briefs! If you submitted a brief to the Justice Committee, you can submit a slightly amended version of the same brief.


Please send your recommendations for witnesses and briefs to the following people:


Chair, Bob Runciman [email protected]
Deputy Chair, George Baker, [email protected]


Opposition Critic, Mobina S.B. Jaffer, [email protected]


Committee Clerk, Shaila Anwar,[email protected]


Here are some of the answers to your questions about the Senate Committee process, compiled from information from the Senate Committee itself:


Q&A on Senate Process for Bill C36
When do the Senate Committee hearings begin?


The Senate Committee hearings begin on September 9 and run through until at least the 11th. There is a chance the Senate Committee will extend the hearings past the 11th, depending on how many witnesses they will see.


How are the witnesses before the Senate Committee organized? Individually? in panels?
Most witnesses are organized in panels, although Senate Legal prefers to have smaller groups (usually no more than 4 per panel). That will all depend on who is invited.


Are people permitted to submit the briefs to the Senate that they submitted to the Justice Committee? Will the Senate Committee be receiving the same briefs that were submitted to the Justice Committee? Are there suggestions for format, length and content of the briefs for Senate Committee?


Anyone can submit a brief and people can use the same ones. Revisions are suggested to address the amendments that were made in the House. In terms of format or length, keep things concise (no more than 10 pages, but 5-7 pages is best. The brief should focus specifically on any key points for or against specific provisions in the bill, provide specific recommendations and/or possible suggestions for amendments. It is of course also a good idea to provide a personal experience or story, depending on who is submitting the brief. In those cases, a 1st person account makes the most sense, but again, keep it brief. And the brief should ideally be submitted electronically. The committee will take care of translation/distribution to the committee. One can submit the same or similar brief to Senate Committee if they wish.


Will the Senate Hearings be televised?


Yes! They can be viewed live via webcast for sure and potentially on CPAC. There is also a web-on-demand service so meetings can be viewed afterwards.


Will the Senate Committee hearings be recorded and transcribed and available for download on the website?


Yes! The unrevised transcripts are usually available within 24 hours and the revised (fully translated) transcripts are posted on line about 10 days later.


For presenters: will translation be provided should witnesses choose to present in French?


Yes! All parliamentary proceedings are simultaneously translated. Same set up as the House committee. Witnesses can feel free to speak in the official language of their choice.


Is there a gallery where the public can watch the Senate Committee hearings?


Yes! There is a gallery for the public to watch in person, but the room is smaller than what the House committee used. Seating is first come, first served with priority being given to witnesses and committee staff. There may be an "overflow" room with the proceedings on closed-circuit TV, but that is not yet confirmed. ith little headsets?


Will the Senate be holding other hearings besides the ones for their pre-study?


Yes! The Senate will go through the same process as the House of Commons, in addition to their pre-study and accompanying hearings. This means that the Senate may hear from more witnesses between the 2nd and 3rd reading of the Bill in Senate. Do not rely on these moments to make recommendations for witnesses or submit briefs.


Who will pay for travel and participation of witnesses?


Similar to the Justice Committee, the Senate Committee will cover a fixed amount of expenses for participants in the Senate Committee pre-study hearings.


For more information about the Senate Process please download the Advocacy Guide II: Appearing Before Committees and Submitting Briefs : http://goo.gl/lqZoe0

[rider014]

Adults in suits should not tell other adults how to live their life. It seems like the suits are wanna be pimps by fining the prostitutes clients so they get a cut in the sales when such clients really cannot be charged for a crime when its legal for the women who provide a sexual service to receive payment even if such a double crossing bill passes. What are they trying to protect them from? They have a choice to tell their clients to wear a condom, there they are protected, or just don't do penetration at all and do all the other fun stuff instead, thats their choice to make not the suits. You know who the suits should protect, men and women who get married. It should be made into law that men must protect themselves by having a pre-nup so that way the wife can't commit highway robbery and take his house and income he earned himself. And women also need to be protected by those wife beaters, thats who the suits should protect. Including banning alimony when the marriage no longer exists and shes not giving any sex in return(now thats an unfair prostitute) and banning unfair child support which in reality is woman support due to forcing the poor guy to pay a percentage of what he earns instead of the fair amount of 50% of exact expenses paid by the mom towards the child, like what $100 to $200 per month is what she pays to the child per month, whats half of that? Certainly not $500 or $1000, but the suits do nothing to protect men who are screwed over....and now this new f u over bill?

I totally agree with you dom, there are a thousand other far worse issues that need to be addressed by the lawmakers of this country. Why did they go after prostitution and put it ahead of other more serious things that affect far more people than this does? Who knows, maybe McKay and Harper were victims of a bait and switch recently

[dom r]

"The big difference between sex for money and sex for free is that sex for money costs less." -Brendan Francis

Yup, this is the truth. Those married men, how much do they pay the wife for sex or 69? Get that twice a week then in 5 years she files for divorce takes 1/2 of what he owns including half of his earnings and savings. Calculate how much he paid the prost wife for that 5 year period for each cum and you'll find out he paid 2 to 10 or 100 times more per cum(depends on how much he earned/saved/own) compared to a more fair prostitute or escort who charges $100 to $200 per cum. And I didn't even mention about the unfair alimony(which should be nil) or over payment of child support like 5 to 10 to 100 times over hes forced to pay.

AND THE SUITS WANT TO MAKE IT A CRIME if a guy pays a more fair prostitute?, BS on that. Yep, I sent an email to those gents in regards to Bill C 36, here it is-


In regards to Bill C36, they cannot make something that is legal illegal. If its legal for a woman to receive the payment for providing such service then it cannot be illegal to make the payment because its legal for her to receive the payment. How else is he suppose to make the payment? Send payment to the moon or something? If she has the legal right to get paid then he has the legal right to pay her, thats all to it and it can't be any other way or else it would be double crossing. Its like saying its legal for a plumber to receive payment but illegal for a customer to make the payment, it is unfair, unjustified, hypocrisy, trickory, two faced, and an unfair set up if men are charged for a crime.

[GTanker]

Whether we like it or not, and personal biases aside a democratically elected government passes legislation that becomes laws. Based on the values and policies they campaign on they are elected to write literally any laws they want. They are then held accountable for those decisions in the courts and once every four years.

We, the non-elected people have choices. We can take the elected government to court and argue the legality of the laws themselves based on the legislation, we can break the law, or we can participate in the political process to enact changes to those laws...this includes the simple act of voting (and getting your friends to). Two options enact change, the other has the risk of consequences without change.

Personally, for now, I choose all three. I will financially support a SCC challenge, I will continue to see trans escorts for now, and I will spend a great deal of time writing my MP, and time/money working for a political party that supports some balanced form of regulated legalization.

We all need to make a choice, do you want to change this or not. If the answer is "yes", then you know what...it's "go time"...just get up and participate. The election is not far away.

Just sayin...

[TSFantasia]

Get Your Service Provider's Contact Info Now!

Well there's no stopping the majority Conservative government in imposing their moral virtues on us all.
Best to get your trusted SPs contact info now before it becomes illegal for them to advertise it.
The Bill has passed third reading as of Oct.6th and is on it's way to Senate for the "rubber stamp" approval.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle19610318/

http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-36/

[Alexis]

Interesting..

Well there's no stopping the majority Conservative government in imposing their moral virtues on us all.
Best to get your trusted SPs contact info now before it becomes illegal for them to advertise it.
The Bill has passed third reading as of Oct.6th and is on it's way to Senate for the "rubber stamp" approval.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle19610318/

http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-36/

Well.. Lets see if it passes the senate.. lol..

Then if the bill is still alive and kicking.. we'll see how they're going to go about enforcing this..

As for your advertising.. If you advertise on Backpage.com you are not advertising in Canada.. you're advertising in Gibraltar..

C36 is not going to fly and will die i court when it's challenged..

Clients have absolutely nothing to worry about!

[vancouverman]

Well.. Lets see if it passes the senate.. lol..

Then if the bill is still alive and kicking.. we'll see how they're going to go about enforcing this..

As for your advertising.. If you advertise on Backpage.com you are not advertising in Canada.. you're advertising in Gibraltar..

C36 is not going to fly and will die i court when it's challenged..

Clients have absolutely nothing to worry about!

A court challenge would take a long time, what about in the interim?

What I want to know is will the police bother to enforce it anyways? I can't see too many cops being eager to waste their time running stings on guys who just want to get laid.

I am personally not worried about it and will not stop my activities, but a lot of men will and this will hurt the women in the long run as earning power goes down and many will leave the business (which I guess is what the govt wants, right?)

What I am interested to see, is if they enforce the advertising part. Apparently that will be illegal so will they block out backpages or erslist or things like that making it harder for men to find someone to meet?

[TSFantasia]

A court challenge would take a long time, what about in the interim?

What I want to know is will the police bother to enforce it anyways? I can't see too many cops being eager to waste their time running stings on guys who just want to get laid.

I am personally not worried about it and will not stop my activities, but a lot of men will and this will hurt the women in the long run as earning power goes down and many will leave the business (which I guess is what the govt wants, right?)

What I am interested to see, is if they enforce the advertising part. Apparently that will be illegal so will they block out backpages or erslist or things like that making it harder for men to find someone to meet?

Well since your already familiar with who are the real legitimate SP's you have an advantage to know who to contact without fear of it being an entrapment set up. So that will actually be good for the well known established SPs as guys will be more wary of seeing someone new. There will probably be an early push to show enforcement and to make some examples. I imagine if Backpage or other sites continue to allow escort ads they will just put them under another heading and the wording will have to avoid any money exchanged for sex connotations.

[Alexis]

It's not going to change much..

A court challenge would take a long time, what about in the interim?

What I want to know is will the police bother to enforce it anyways? I can't see too many cops being eager to waste their time running stings on guys who just want to get laid.

I am personally not worried about it and will not stop my activities, but a lot of men will and this will hurt the women in the long run as earning power goes down and many will leave the business (which I guess is what the govt wants, right?)

What I am interested to see, is if they enforce the advertising part. Apparently that will be illegal so will they block out backpages or erslist or things like that making it harder for men to find someone to meet?

It's not going to change much.. There's little to enforce..

Backpage.com already requires us to write the ads in a way that complies with the laws.. after all none of us are selling sex.. we just want a donation for the time you spend with us.. Backpage also doesn't allow any nudity in any ads.. The government in Canada will have a tough time enforcing any of the changes other than the common decency ones that exist.. It's up to the police to decide how they are going to enforce the laws and they're not going to go back to 1970's bullshit..

The new laws in regards to advertising are only to prohibit the explicit sale of sex.. It has nothing to do with escorting or companionship..

All our newspaper ads will continue to be there.. it's not changing anything for most of us really..

I'm pretty sure that every advertisement I have up already complies with the new proposed laws.. it's simple decency really.. we don't want children reading obscene propositions on the internet.. I'm joking.. all tho some explicit ads are a bit much even for me..

Once this passes the senate (which it probably will by the look of things) I'll have to take a really good look at it..

I'm quite sure that for those of us seeking or offering companionship it will be business as usual.. Those buying or selling sex "might" have issues..