Santa comes early for Canadians?
Diametrically opposed views on how to deal with sex workers were on display this weekend, with Canada teetering on the brink of legalising prostitution, and the UK’s Met warning media owners that they could face criminal charges if they carry ads for massage parlours and saunas. The federal government in Ontario is in a lather …
Santa comes early for Canadians?
And often, it sounds like! lol
"recent research from ACPO (pdf) suggests that across the UK around nine per cent of women involved in sex work (2,600 out of 30,000) might meet the definition of "trafficked" at any one time"
You'd think they'd be able to find some of them then - considering the six-month Pentameter 2 operation, which involved all 55 police forces in the UK and Ireland failed to find a single trafficking victim.
We all know exploiting women and children is not the same thing as Consenting Aults Who Meet in PRIVATE. This would be like saying the is no difference between porn and child porn.
This is a moarl witch hunt to keep us our of the nieghborhoods and communites and these same tatics have been used to decriminate and harass sex workers.
If you can have sex with strangers in your home then so can a sex worker. if you want to regulate a sex workers heath, then we need to montor everyone's health.
I suggest that add laws that prostitutesd can not PUBLICALLY SOLICT anyone or they will be arrested for a PUBLIC NUISANCE, therefore the women will not be given a criminal record for prostituion. I think brothels should be in business zones however if less than 3 women share a location and work space they would not be considered a brothel and can live and work in their homes or hotel.
I also think anyone exploiting another person against their will or exploiting kids or trying to purcahse sex from kids should go to prison for 25 years on the first offense.
But more importantly Ithink we need to create laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a sex worker regarding heathcare, housing, education or employment, and make HATE CRIMES against sex workers illegal, also make sure law enforcment knows that if any of the sex workers file a claim that they were harassed or abused or threatened or harmed that they will fully investigate their claims and therefore provide the same sancation and protection under the law given to all citizens.
We can give these women some sort of tax id number so they can file taxes but this is not legalizing prostitution it is simply decriminalizing them, because prostitution has never been illegal in Canada, but we created laws to run these women from their communities and harass them, while we put them at great risk.
the reason they couldn't find these victims is because there were ads plastered all over the papers telling people where they are, if they get these ads removed then it will make it far easier for the police to find them, are you not familiar with police logic?
According to the Beeb, "the first Operation Pentameter in 2006 freed 84 women and teenage girls from brothels and massage parlours and led to 232 arrests".
Recently the FBI did a nationwide sting to find victims of human trafficking. In 3 days they made 884 arrests, they did find 69 runaway teens with their 99 pimps so over 700 tax payers were thrown in jail because they were looking for an ADULT ESCORT, allbecause of THE MORAL WITCH HUNT.
I bet if we send the cops into 884 nightclubs we could find 99 bartenders giving drinks to 69 kids. These 69 teens will be thrown in fostercare with little or no counseling and will runaway back to their pimps. rarely is any person given the 25 years for human trafficking, they will plea out and get less than 5 years,
I think law enforcment has TOO MUCH MONEY IN THIER BUDGETS, they claim they donot have the man power to monitor the sex offenders to the point it is possible to hold a girl captive in your backyard for 17 years while you on parole and are a sex offender, but we have the man power to STALK MIDDLED AGED CONSENTING ADULTS ONLINE.
Your tax dollars at work, I want to move to Canada where at least they are fighting to give women sanction and protection under the law.
Well in the US when the attorney general office went after Craiglist they lied to the media and said CL was not cooperating. However CL did require phone verifcation on all their accounts plus they got your credit card info to insure you are an adult plus they monitored the IP addrrses and turned them over to the cops.
This is how they caught the Craiglsit killer, Craiglist gave them the mans Ip address and they tracked him to his home, meanwhile after he killed the girl in Boston he went to Rhode Island where indoor prostitution was still legal and he robbed a women and she dialed 911 and reported it and he was caught. So how were they not cooperating and how is Canda now ging after CL when prostituion has never been illegal in Canada.
The only real intention of these advocates is too keep ALL PROSTITUTION ILLEGAL. We have criminalized these women with no good cause other than our own predijuice against them and the public stigma that it is ok to not only discriminate against these women but also to commit hate crimes against them.
But exploiting victims is not the same as consenting adults who meet in private, you have laws against human trafficking so go back and see what each person involved was sentenced too. Also how manyof these VICTIMS had access to cell phones and had access to come and go but still did not report being exploited until they were arrested.
Seems to me it is easy for the cops to vist the brothels and check ids to make sure everyone is of legal age and in the country legally. You can't do that if there is no brothels, then they just hide where you can not find and resuce them.
Gee thanks for the lengthy response but I stopped reading about a third of the way through. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously if you can't spell or form a coherent sentence?
So what? How many of those 84 were trafficked or forced into prostitution before PC Plod won their "freedom"? Freedom from what BTW, shagging punters for money? And what were these 232 arrests for and how many of them resulted in convictions for trafficking?
FFS instead of quoting meaningless statistics, at least try and make them relevant.
I believe, having one, in family. Kids statistically will turn out better if they are the product of a loving family that is united. I fail to see how allowing hookers will benefit our society, for which family is its beating heart.
I'll get flamed of course.
But hey, as Aristotle once said, any system ultimately dies by reaching its ideal. In our society, too much freedom or too much of anything is not necessarily a good thing. Getting closer to Las Vegas simply offers more opportunity for the temporarily or permanently weak to falter and go further down the barrel.
The blind Liberals (not all are blinds) will say more more more to anything that is against a restriction. I think we should be more conservative. Gambling, hookers, drugs these are more than common sense bad things. They are proven by studies to cause more problems than solutions. Where the hell has COMMON SENSE went?
Since when is legalizing hookers a good thing? For F$@#K S#@E!
end of rant...
Because banning something makes it all go away!
As with drugs we can see that making them more and more illegal just channels funds into vast criminal enterprises who supply them. Better to admit it goes on, then regulate and tax it instead!
....is no solution for those that are not in a position to obtain any sexual companionship on their own merits. Exactly what is it that allows people to judge others' lives and relationships and then tell them what they can do?
I for one would like the sanctimonious prigs that think that only their view of the world should prevail to be put firmly back in their places and adults be allowed to get on with their lives according to the law. It isn't the job of the law to decide how people should arrange their families other than to provide a little encouragement to people to ensure that their children are brought to adulthood without being abandoned.
.... as far as I'm aware (not an area of law I've had the need to study), prostitution is not in fact illegal in the UK - hence the 2009 act, which refers as the article implies specifically to "trafficked" prostitution - i.e. forced "sex-workers" - and the need to prosecute under the "profiting from" and "keeping a brothel" laws, which are different from prostitution itself. THAT to my knowledge (i.e. exchanging money for sex) is still legal in england. Had you spotted a mad epidemic of hookers in your area you think suddenly need addressing?
It's called "the oldest profession" for a reason and attempts to stop it far more rabid than the UK governments through the ages have met with a resounding "fail" every single time.
Common sense? Common sense, surely, is recognising that it'll happen anyway and setting a legal framework where it is controlled and safe and where the truely horrible elements of the surrounding crime (trafficking etc) are therefore better able to be policed. Forcing somethign that's going to happen anyway "underground" just makes it harder to police.
Common sense is recognising that the kind of control being attempted never works - look what happened with prohibition, look what's happening with the "war on drugs", how's that going so far?
I'm all for common sense - I just like to be a little more selective as to what I put in that category and political grandstanding for the sake of "Doing Something About All This Crime" doesn't fit there.
As for Canada, seems reasonable to me - they don't seem to be saying they agree with it, or want to promote it in any way or "opening a flood gate" for it. They just seemt o be saying that trying to stop people talking about it is pretty silly and probably not something that should happen in a theoretically free country.,
Oh.. and here comes the "flame" bit:
"Too much freedom"? Can you point to any major freedom left in the UK that hasn't been diluted or corrupted already? The right to silence for example? The right to due process? Innocent until proven guilty? Whether I want to use this particular freedom or not, I don't fancy having any MORE freedoms removed by the faux-holier-than-thou brigade thankyou.
See? That wasn't so bad was it?
IT's a good idea when it means that the oldest profession and the one liable to still be around long after most other industries have died off gets proper regulation.
Think of it this way: If there are proper rules, regulations, checks and balances in place, then there will be more incentive to offer clean, hygenice brothels, less liklihood of diseases being spread and a lower incidence of traffiking as all books and accounts need to be seen by the authorities like other businesses. It also means that all those transactions going on can be taxed and help the economy out.
Plus, it helps erode this silly, victorian puritanical ideal that anything to do with sex is bad.
"They are proven by studies to cause more problems than solutions. Where the hell has COMMON SENSE went?" - As I was always asked in my GCSEs years ago, 2 examples of evidence that can be objectively discussed please. Remember, if prohibition doesn't work, isn't it better to allow it to happen but in a controlled way?
I also fail to see how allowing people to trade sex damages your family. C'mon, I'm sure there's a rational idea there somewhere...
And besides, I LIKE gambling and drugs! I keep my caffine level high until I can replace it with alcohol and I've often thought about buying shares in something.
Oh, you meant drugs and gambling you can look down on.
It would be "nice" to live in a world where no person felt compelled to prostitute themselves - and maybe no-one felt they needed mood-altering substances.
We don't live in such a world. We live in one where prostitution, drugs and gambling are a reality and where attempts to obliterate them via legislation have actually increased the harm that arises from them.
You want common sense? Me too. But to me common sense is realising that certain ways of dealing with things are counterproductive (as decades of experience should tell us) and that we should be seeking other ways of dealing with them.
Of course there is a role for using the law to *control* these things. But if they are simply outlawed, criminals prosper and the vulnerable - and often the rest of society - suffer as a result.
Regulate what, these women should not be required to have any regulations that are not in affect for any other profession. leagliaizng them and taxing them makes the governement the pimp. if we decriminalize them they can pay taxes, they do not need tobe regulated.
The only regulations I would agree with is that you must be an consenting adult, and you can not solicit anyone in PUBLIC. More than 3 women working from a location would be considered a brothel and must be in a business zone, however up to 3 sex workers would be able to share the same work space in their home or hotel.
You do not get to make rules that say I can not have sex with another consenting adult in my home, unless we plan on ENFORCING this to all consenting adults whether you have sex for free or charge for your time.
We also can not demand these women be tested unless we plan to test all adults. Studies already show sex workers have less std's than the general public, studies also show voulenteer testing works best.
Also any person exploiting a women against her will or any minor or any person trying to purchase sex from a kid would get 25 years for their first offesne. This would give the cops the ability to show up at any sex workers location check her id to make sure she is of legal age in the country legally.
Also there needs to be a law that requires the cops to investigate any claim a sex workers has about abuse or harssment against her.
But all we can focus on is that we "have tokeep these women out of our neighborhoods"
No matter where you live and what you do for a living, on any street men try to solicit you or pick you up, you do not have to be a sex worker to be approached by men in public.
"if they are the product of a loving family that is united. I fail to see how allowing hookers will benefit our society, for which family is its beating heart."
And I fail to see how this version of the "Won't Someone Think of the Children!!!" argument has *anything* to do with the subject under discussion.
This has nothing to do with children, it is to do with the right of *adults* to make up their *own* minds what they do with their bodies and their lives.
Your comment about "blind liberals" suggests that you're just a "reactionary conservative" who will automatically say "no, no, no!" to anything that you don't like on the grounds that "I don't like this, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to do it" and this is backed up where you claim that "gambling, hookers, drugs" are "common sense bad things" and then claim that "they are proven by studies to cause more problems that solutions" which is utter nonsense.
The only "studies" that "prove" this are ones that have been set up by people like the Poppy Project who have a vested interest (like you) in banning something they don't like and they will use any dubious methodology and skewed results to back up their questionable claims.
"Since when is legalising hookers a good thing"? Since, as with any form of prohibition, people have begun to realise that banning something *doesn't* make it go away, in fact it just drives it and the people involved *into* the hands of criminals and takes away the protections which they should be entitled to under the law.
That is real "common sense", you just cannot (or will not) understand it.
Regulation will lead licensing which they will place huge fee'son, then they will demand we work in certain loactions and we do not all want to work in brothels. The only regulation we need is to not permit solicitiation in public and exploiting a minor or trying to purchase sex from a minor, and of course exploiting an adult against their will.
So any indoor prostituion in private between consenting adults would need no regualtions., if we simply decriminalzie them. None of my clients would go to a brothel to see me, they much rather come to my home or hotel
Had we not creating laws that discriminated against a sex worker we would not need any additional laws. If you don't get to regulate who, where and when I have sex for free than you don't have the right to regulate me if I charge a fee.
Unless we are prepared to REGULATE ALL SEX BETWEEN ADULTS to include testing, then we can not ask this of the sex worker. It is clearly discrimination.
The solution would be to decriminalze all consenting adults who meet n private, meanwhile creat LONG TERM services for women who want to exit the indsutry, but until we are ready to give these women long term housing, heathcare, education, transportation and counseling, then nothing will change.
People want to rid their communties of us,offer us no services and some want to tax us so we can be exploited further by our government who hasn't even provided us sanction and protection under the law. That clearly shows the decrimination and HATE CRIMES against sex workers.
Maybe we should teach our kids not to be bullies and not to HATE OTHERS because we do not agree with their personal choices. Maybe if we do not continue to teach our kids that HATE CRIMES against sex workers, mabe we should teach women not to give up sex for free by the 3rd date and that it is not ok to have unprotected sex just because your in a relationship, and maybe we should teach MEN to have some RESPECT for women.
Look at how men talk about women, after they shack up with them for months they claim they are not dating her, they call use all whores because they have nothing left contructive enough to continue the arguement and they call us a BTICH when we say NO.
And until your ready to give all these women long term services than do not talk about a SOLUTION, criminalzing us is not a soultion as it only puts the VICTIM in jail and lets the criminals (the pimps and predators) go free.
Ido not come to your home or church or workplace placing my moral belifes on you so you have no right doing so to others. we do not all agree on The marriage game, that allows men to absue you and then leave his family with no support.
It is stupid to regulate anyones sexual activity unless we do it for EVERYONE.
It is legal for a drunk women to have unprotected sex with half the town but you want sex workers tested and regulated.
the only regulation you need is that both parties have to be consenting adults who meet in private, if women want to work for a brothel or work alone, the cops can then check with the brothels at any time to make sure they are all of legal age and in the country legally.
You can't regulate me, when everyone else is doing the same thing, expect they are giving it away, and I am samrt enought to charge for my time.
You do not need laws outlawing public prostituion because being a PUBLIC NUSIANCE already covers it, we already have laws against human traffciking, so what is left to regulate or control. What gives you the right to try and have any say so or control over what I do with my body if I am an adult.
Yes it would be nice to focus on setting up services for all women wanting to exit the industry but nobody is commenting on the sex workers needs. We only focus on criminalizing her, keeping her out of our comunties and wanting to TAX her, so the governement will then be exploiting her or wanting to regulate her sexual behavior without regulating anyone elses.
Yes then it would be a better world, so as a concerned citizen, maybe you should ask for your that dollars to be spend on SERVICES for these women instead of going to STALKING THEM and throwing them in jail.
"if they are the product of a loving family that is united. I fail to see how allowing hookers will benefit our society, for which family is its beating heart."
What about those singles who solicit hookers? Or are you one of those stoopid dudes who think that premarital sex is an unholy sin so bad that Satan himself will burn you alive in Hell if you do it?
"Maybe we should teach women not to give up sex for free by the 3rd date".
So in your world, do women only have sex 'imposed' on them by predatory males? Isn't it possible that women might fancy a bit of rumpy-pumpy after a couple of dates, too?
The generalisations in your next paragraphs aren't worth responding to. If you'd said "Look at how SOME men...." I might have given you the time of day.
Till the goddam British pull their heads out of their own ar e, they will continue to fail generation after generation.
Typical stick head in sand and ignore the facts attitude.
And to think, they all think they are so superior, lowlives!
you arent american - else you would have made a very ironic statement indeed.
then perhaps they should try investigating it more seriously rather than having a go at the editors of newspaper which carry a few ads.
They could perhaps try buying a PC and spending a few minutes searching the web. I suspect that there are few police stations in this country which do not have a service provider advertising on the web within easy walking distance.
So they could try starting there.
Of course what they then might find is that the vast majority are not breaking the law and that their claims are wildly inaccurate.
If they do find cases of trafficking they could try tearing up the human rights laws and start nailing the perpetrators to the nearest trees.
Studies also show that most of the women that claim they were exploited, had cell phones and accesss to come and go. They did not report their plight because they FEAR BEING PROSECUTED and the public shame and abuse by the cops during arrest.
Why not simply put safe gaurads in place to make sure only adults can post ad ads. I can not remember any men that were charged in Canada for trying to purcahse sex from a minor. creating laws to give people 25 years for human trfficking doesn't do much if the sentences are not handed down.
Also maye if we actually had services in place for victims and women wanting to exit the indsutry, these women might just walk away and get help. Antime a women can not report a crime against herself do to fear we have taken away her sanction and protection.
Instead of worry about a few people being exploited,Maybe we should have investiagted the 300 prostitutes that were murdered in Canada in the past 25 years.
Why are human traffciking victims worth more than murdered hookers, each should have sanction and protection under the law.
Maybe we should stop STALKING middle aged consenting adults down online and focus on putting pimps and predators in prison for 25 years. One thing has nothing to do with the other,closing brothels will make it easier for anyone to explot another person.
Maybe you should actually have services set up for VICTIMS.
That they had the Adult pages on CraigsList removed. They got rid of the site that could have helped them the best.
... what's the tech angle?
Or are you casting aspersions on the character and pulling power of the tech/geek community?
Every so often, you get it right. Reminds me why Canada truly is the greatest place on Earth to live. A woman's body is her own; she can do what she damned well pleases with it. You uppity morals be damned. My sky-fairy taught me different rules than did your sky-fairy. Explain to me then why your prudish morality should be allowed to override my beliefs? Or more importantly, why should you sky-fairy commandments be allowed to override the belief system of the woman in question?
It's her body, and her decision!!!
I totally agree with you and also think its ironic that we morally think its ok for a drunk women to give it away to strangers in a nightclub and not even use protection, however if a women is making a buck we have issues over MORALS.
Studeis show most women in the dating world have sex by the 3rd date.
Or we have no moral problem with men who lie to women to get sex.
So by that rational since its my body I should be allowed to rob a bank ?
It has nothing to do with whose body it is.
Where the f##k are we going as a society if morals are so out of fashion that we should drop them to instead prefer the "open mindedness" of having none just to be with the times, since those days the 'in' thing is to sneer at morals and think they are for retards or cave men.
That kind of open mindedness free for all horse shit gives you its own set of problems.
You think its great that kids get in bed at 12 and are all f#$%d out at 20, possibly with a kid and a wasted future in front of them? Wake up. This horse shit of open mindedness and let all do what they want is just a form of anarchy under cover.
Having morals, which is the crust of the issue here, is what is being judged. Either you stand for something, and heck, if you think deep down that prostitution is fine, then my friend you are seriously f$#d up or have never been in contact with a hooker. Do some pro bono work at your community center and then come back here.
Get out of your Ivory towers and go smell the roses.
once you do that in your life you'll see that hookers, drugs and casinos alike really f#$k up weak people badly. If you can't have clean fun go see a shrink.
These days the idiots have come to feel that allowing depravity is progress and that standing against it by morals is being a retard. God its aggravating to read these twits/fashionista's/CNN grown people who can't get their heads out of their TV.
Just look at the last 3000 years of history, and see in which moral/lack of moral climate societies have grown strong or weak, just educate yourself and stop being such a tv twit.
You morals aren't my morals. By what right do you shove your beliefs down my throat? Or that of any other human being? I do have morals - indeed I am a person of faith...simply not likely your faith. According to my belief system, cramming your beliefs down my throat is far more “immoral” than allowing a person of any gender to do what they want with their body.
You have no right (moral or otherwise) to even attempt to control what someone may or may not do with their own body. Having sex – for money or otherwise – brings no harm to anyone, so long as said sex is consensual. If you think some sort of psychic cooties are going to leak into the atmosphere and pollute your children simply because two consenting adults choose to have sex (for money or otherwise) then I would suggest you simply get over it.
If you wanted to suggest that individuals under the age of 18 could not participate either as a buyer or seller in a sexual transaction…I’m actually fine with that. As a society we have determined the age of 18 to be the age at which one enters “adulthood” and is allowed to make choices for themselves. If you believe for one second that you have any right to tell anyone who is 18 or older what they may or may not do then according to my belief system you are deeply immoral.
There is a huge difference between “robbing a bank” (depriving other people of property) and “having consensual sex.” One is an act of violence whereby one individual asserts their will over another by force and takes something that is not there. The other is an act involving nothing more than the bodies of two adults who both consent to participate.
Short version: your morality doesn’t trump mine…and it doesn’t trump that of anyone else. To bad, so sad, but my sky-fairy's social laws are just as relevant as your own.
"Explain to me then why your prudish morality should be allowed to override my beliefs?"
They should not be allowed to override anything but people should be allowed to vote on the issue. Your beliefs, taken individually, are of no consequences just as mine are.
However, if you look at history, whenever depravity (read hookers, gambling et al) has flourished, civilization went down. Its a natural consequence of a civilization reaching its own high goals which usually includes people's rights. Aristotle was dead on.
This habit of letting more and more stuff be allowed and 'normal' is akin to entropy. Civilizations grow strong with a shared and well defined and respected set of rules/laws/ethics/morals. When diversity sticks in to the benefit of all due to the initial resulting success of said uniform rules, the system bogs down in uncertainty and becomes weak by nature as it has to allow for everything, and there is no way to take a strong position on anything anymore.
I like my values just the same as you like yours. They are opposites no doubts, but I would still fight for your right to express them. I can loudly claim mines and that is my right as well.
I see that in a civilization cycle, we are at the end part. Just like the Romans at the end, we eat too much sweat and fat, we turn to fat, armies too large, meddling too much everywhere, government inefficient, hookers, gambling its all okay. Its a pattern dude. Just face it.
The guy that wrote Dune got that. This decadence we live in this century as well as the last has been gone through by many civilizations before us. I am just upset that its happening again and that we don't realize it or know what to do against it. So I pick against the hookers here. Its like we're all stupid sheep that can't learn shit from history books.
In my mind if you need to pay for sex you failed.
Bimbo's are just a symptom of our civilization's decline, not the cause.
Heck, you want to make them legal? Knock yourself out. You'll just accelerate ever so slightly our final deliquescence into history books that keep repeating themselve in a glorious Ode to our collective ineptitude at real social evolution.
I walked away from your comment. I got some air, I mulled it around…and I still feel compelled to respond. F*$# you. You are a narrow-minded bigot. If you are indeed Canadian, then I am SHAMED to share a country with you. Your opinion is wrong. Prostitution is not a sign of the decay of society. Quite the opposite; the acceptance of its existence is a sign that we are evolving beyond the need for self-important religions that attempt to use control of sexuality as a tool to keep the populace in check. It’s a sign that we are capable of thinking for ourselves. We don’t require a theocrat telling us what can and cannot be: rules that only exist in the first place because they help keep the theocrats in control.
Religion should be a personal matter: no individual – or book – can tell another what to believe.. Laws should exist to prevent physical harm and loss of property. They should exist in essence to prevent us from harming ourselves in areas of life where we as a society have proven too immature to act with reason. Alternately, they give us reasoned recourse to punish those would use force or violence to impose their will upon others.
As a Canadian I welcome a vote on prostitution. I refuse to believe that there are even remotely enough scared, bigoted primitives in this country that they would succeed in imposing their backwards beliefs on the rest of us.
Listen, if you want a Theocracy, move to the U.S. Or Australia. Hell, go find a nice country living under Sharia law and you can REALLY party like its 1299. Stay away from my country. We’ve struggled hard to overcome the sort of narrow-minded bigotry that says that one group of people get to determine “right and wrong” based on theology rather than reasoned logic.
As to the “bimbo” crack, seriously, f&$# you in the face. Some of my very best friends in the entire world are sex workers. All three have Masters Degrees…one holds a Doctorate. They started an escort service because they make far better money at it. They are picky about their clients (and are thus safe from much of the negativity associated with street-corner hooking.) What’s more, they truly enjoy the work. Their clients are kind, respectful, treat them well and both parties share a completely mutual and wholly acceptable good time.
There is a huge difference between that sort of “companion” and the crack-whores you seem to believe make up the majority of the sex trade and will doom us all. These friends of mine, who work as escorts…they, like me, are religious folk. We follow different faiths…but shockingly our faith and our morality can exist in a world where people have rights over their own existence.
I suggest you learn the same. If not…move to the US! Leave Canada alone; join the Tea Party and PLEASE hasten the demise of that country. The quicker the theocracy takes them over, the quicker they can get on with fighting other religious extremists and the quicker they can all blow themselves back to the stone age.
Go away. Leave the rest of the world to continue growing and advancing into a fairer and more equitable society in peace. I don’t like the idea of telling someone they aren’t welcome in Canada: tolerance is the very core of my belief system. Still, the single most difficult thing for a tolerant person to tolerate is intolerance.
I can’t stand bigots. I am saddened by bigotry, even knowing that I occasionally am myself bigoted. Still, at the risk of being a bigot and a hypocrite: please leave my country. I don’t want your beliefs of hatred and intolerance passed on to my children. My countrymen and I have worked too hard to get where we are; I don’t want that ruined. There are other parts of this world where they welcome bigots. Can’t you consider moving there?
I just want a country of peace, tolerance, logic and reason. One where people think for themselves, are taught to respect the decisions and lifestyle choices of others, and are free to pursue (or not) and religion of their choice…so long as that religion does not advocate forcing intolerance on others. Canada is trying to become this. Please don’t ruin it for the rest of us.
Well said Sir. Well said. I salute you.
P.S. The cake is a lie.
It has nothing to do with religion. Did I talked about religion? No I did not.
Sex and religion have been unfortunately mixed up in our civilization and that's quite a shame I agree. Especially when its actually the latter that f$%ks up the former. Lol!
Nonetheless, prostitution has always been equated with depravity in any civilization. The reason is that the wife or husband feel bad/insecure when the other goes to bed elsewhere and this breaks up relationship and families in some cases. What this means is that prostitution is in fact a contributor to a civilization's decay. Heck, there's worse, like spending your government on armies, bureaucracies, etc. But it still is historically a symptom of a civilization in decay, long before Jesus, Abraham, et al.
Tough shit honey. Seriously, just go see your local historian. And since its part of decay, just like tartar decays your teeth, I'd prefer to vote for Listerine than Tartar.
It has nothing to do with religion. I don't practise religion and am strongly against joining any of their club (they don't let you join two at a time.. so restrictive.. and useless) I pity bimbos the same as I pity anyone working sales (perhaps more for the occasional unplanned personal and physical humiliation). Some of them are of course very smart, just like in anything, and I don't disrespect anyone of them personally. I disrespect their job as a whole since I believe it further decays our civilization.
So you can go and tell me to f%^k myself, I'll take it to advice, in another form, tonight with my wife. You don't like my opinion and that's your right. Just don't tell me you really open minded when in the end you tell people to go f%^k themselves because their opinion are not parallel to yours, ok? ;-p
To wit, that prostitution per se is already legal in Canada.
What was illegal until this recent decision were:
☙ keeping a common bawdy house, i.e. operating a brothel or even just one whore having a regular place of business.
☙ communicating for the purposes of prostitution, i.e. advertising, asking potential clients if they're interested as they stroll along the streets, etc. Interestingly, earlier court decisions have held (iirc) that the interior of an automobile is a private place and negotiations conducted therein between john and whore do not violate this prohibition.
☙ living on the avails of the trade, i.e. being a pimp or a madam
But prostitution, per se, is not illegal. If you can find clients without being a pest about it, it's perfectly fine to sell sexual access to your ever lovin' bod for filthy lucre.
The upshot of this situation is that alternative newspapers are filled with ads from "escorts", ads that don't fool anybody at all. Even the coppers aren't fooled. But guess what? The coppers don't care. Even though many of the ads are from agencies, i.e. virtual brothels that deliver sex to your door.
After all, Canada is by and large a cold country; how can one justify laws that prevent part of the population from warming up their anatomy?
☙ keeping a common bawdy house, i.e. operating a brothel or even just one whore having a regular place of business.
This is stupid, if a women has sex at home for free it is not a brothel bt if she charges a fee it is.
We al know when they wrote the law it was intended to stop Brothels that housed a stable of women. Since we applied it to all women whether they are independent or agency or brothel is what made them throw the law out. It discrminated against the sex worker.
until we can be RATIONAL and without bring in our peronal moral beliefs into making laws that do not harm women and does not take away their sanction and protection then any new laws each city tries to past will be thrown out too.
Mmmm. That's why i wrote:
"The federal government in Ontario is in a lather after the Superior Court of Justice struck down laws against keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade."
Shouldn't a law give at least a vague suggestion of it's purpose in the name. Ie indicate that it's pretty specific, not some general catch-all law trying to criminalise all sorts.
If it's about stopping trafficking, call it the anti-trafficking act!
If its really about trafficking why do we not make laws giving anone who exploits a kid or tries to purchase sex from a id, 25 years on their firs offesne mandatory.
This alone will cut down human trafficking, out do you really think VICTIMS will come forth when they FEAR being PROSECUTED and pubically humilated over the abuse from the cops during their arrest.
Maybe we should out law porn just because we have criminals that engage in child porn.
Maybe we should shut down stripclubs too and adult bookstores and make it illegal for anyone to have sex outside of marriage and then we can take away womens right to own property and vote again too while we are at it.
better yet whY don't we BE REAL PARENTS and KNOW WHERE ARE KIDS are, NOT GIVE KIDS ACcESS TO ADULT SITES.
Maybe stop lying to the media trying to convince us that expoiting kids is the same as adult entertainment.
Believe it or not some people do actually enjoy working in the sex-trade, it's not all full of drug-addicts funding an addiction or slaves forced into it from far flung corners of the wonderful European Union. The media loves stirring up the masses by always reporting the bad side of everything.
I think it should be legalised, then it can be controlled, monitored and ultimately all that money flowing through the "system" can be taxed.
Having said that it does nothing for me, but getting it into the open will ensure it doesn't go underground where it's harder to monitor or control it. As we know keeping drugs illegal has worked wonders and we have almost no drug related problems in this country!
As old as prostitution, is the desire of the few to impose their morality on the many. Otherwise how would we know our place ?
Look at the bonkers laws on drugs, for example.
Over the course of about 15 years, I've had sex with more than 1,000 prostitutes, most of them the kind of lookers you'd see on a magazine cover. Hell, what's the point of having a good salary if you can't have a bit of fun now and then?
The most successful of the ladies that I've known was an Estonian lass with absolute top-model looks. She spent three years in London plying her trade and at the end of her stint she went home with more than a million in her bank account.
She was perfectly in control of her life and doubtless now has a fantastic lifestyle in her own country.
However, while she was here, had her agency so much as driven her from the airport to her flat, she would have been classed as a trafficked victim.
The law is an ass.
(A/C obviously, because of the prudish society in which we live)
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds