Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: Petition against the Nordic model....

  1. #1

    Exclamation Petition against the Nordic model....

    I just signed the petition "The Honourable Peter MacKay: Say NO to the NORDIC MODEL and YES to DECRIMINALIZATION of sex work in Canada" on Change.org.

    It's important. Will you sign it too? Here's the link:

    Sign the petition here

    NOTE: Unclick the 'display my signature' box if you don't want your signature to appear publicly on the website.

    Originally posted by susie on perb.

    Spread the word!

  2. #2
    Done. That page is quite an impressive piece of work.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    Me too!

    And they have links to interesting articles.
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  4. #4
    THANK YOU BURKIE !!!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Quebec City
    Posts
    689
    Also done.

    Thanks for posting the link.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]The hockey game most enjoyed by Canadians from coast to coast since 1972.

  5. #5
    so when is the vote or whatever on this supposed to take place?

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    2,808
    The Supreme Court of Canada gave the government 1 year from December 19, 2013 to come up with legislation to replace (pass a new law) the current law. I would think any law would have to comply with the Court's decision, mainly not be a threat to safety of sex workers in Canada.

    Anyone can correct me if I missed anything or if I am wrong about anything.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supr...laws-1.2471572
    So when will Hillary go to Prison?

    Only the Democrats would have a potential CONVICT as their Top Presidential Candidate. Simply Pathetic

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    My understanding is that the government can make whatever law they want. The court does not have to approve the law before it is passed, but it can be challenged again in court afterwards. Because they have majority, they can surely get any law they make to be passed, even if they know that it would be unconstitutional.

    People who make laws are not stupid and they know in advance if their law will stand in court or not. It's not unusual for politicians to make laws that are unconstitutional to please their electors and when the law gets struck down they can blame the liberal judges. ''Well, we tried our very best to uphold morality'' The Nordic model would definitely be unconstitutional, but they could do it if they want. With the new election coming up next year they might decide to make something that ''looks good'' just to get re-elected, knowing full well it would take many years before the new law gets struck down by a court.

    The best would be to not make any new law. Sex for money would be legit and not regulated. Of course the conservatives will not do that I'm sure.

    Completely criminalizing sale and purchase of sex would not be against the constitution. If it is completely illegal, they don't have to protect the safety of workers. But then how do you define prostitution exactly? What exactly constitutes a sex act and what constitutes a transaction? People can have any kind of consensual sex with anyone, anytime. People can give money to whoever they want. It's not like drugs, where the thing being sold is itself illegal. Criminalizing the sale of sex is ridiculous and impossible to enforce to any significant degree. The only thing the law would do would be to make prostitution less visible, force it underground and give some criminal records to a handful of unlucky people.

    Whatever they do I'm sure it will be challenged in court again. ANd there goes our tax dollars. That's a big puzzle they have and I'm really curious to see what they are going to do.
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    461
    The Harper Government has indicated that it intends to introduce it' s new prostitution legislation very soon - ie. this spring, as indicated in the following article:

    Toronto Sun: Tories prepare new prostitution bill for this spring

    In the article Justice Minister Peter MacKay indicates that the focus of the new prostitution laws will be to treat sex workers as victims:

    MacKay said the bill's focus will be on protecting vulnerable people.

    "We know that there is tremendous violence and vulnerability associated with prostitution," he said. "Prostitutes are predominantly victims. They have very much, in some cases, run out of options before entering this particular pursuit."

    "There will need to be support mechanisms outside the legislation in order to help people transition out of...prostitution and victimization," he said.
    For the moment, MacKay refuses to say whether the proposed new legislation will adopt the Nordic model:

    The minister wouldn't say if that means his bill will bring the so-called Nordic model to Canada, which would criminalize johns in hopes of reducing the demand for hookers.

    "We've looked at a lot of different options and a lot of different models," MacKay said. "The Nordic model is one. I can assure you of this: it will be a Canadian solution."

    Conservative MP Joy Smith has already proposed a Canadian-style version of the Nordic model.

    Under Smith's proposal, johns would face fines or jail time for trying to buy sex, while prostitutes wouldn't face any criminal charges.
    Reading between the lines would seem to indicate that the new legislation may indeed be a modified version of the Nordic model.

  9. #9
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,165
    I don't understand what the impetus is for this legislation. It is almost like Canada is becoming more like the USA. I am really shocked. These proposals are a total overreaction to a problem that is a small part of the totality of the sex industry. It sounds like the tone of the legislation is to make the sex market synonymous with trafficking and view all sex workers as though they had been trafficked and not exercised their own free choice to work in the sex industry. I don't get it.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    2,808
    Siocnarf, in the states all states have prostitution laws. Only in 1 state is it legal in select counties and regulated. Most laws concern engaging in prostitution, which is exchanging money for sex; or promoting prostitution, which is the handler of prostitution. The enforcement is quite arbitrary as most local police have more important things to do, but they do stings every now and then. Some municipalities have nothing to do, so they do stings more often than the rest. They make a big deal about it and feed the local papers with arrest. Suffolk County of New York, which is Long Island, just had a couple month sting which arrested 110 guys. Many of them are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and others who work in companies, etc. The prosecutor a woman made a big deal about human trafficking, which most girls who do this are not subject to. And you do hear about cases where guys are robbed or women are robbed, who engage in prostitution. And you know this would be less likely to happen if it was legal.

    I personally am against street prostitution, but as someone is mostly Libertarian I thought Canada's law on prostitution was perfect. If prostitution was completely decriminalized, I think it should be zoned. I don't think prostitutes should be able to operate their trade (incall) in residential areas. I don't think young children should be subject to viewing how prostitutes operate. They do ask questions when they see women in scantly clothing walking around chasing cars.

    I don't know if the plaintiffs who sued about the law really thought about the negative effects of their suit. The government could make a law that would completely drive them underground, which was their original complaint. Like you said, if they government made it completely illegal, then they may not be able to complain about the protection of their safety because they are now acting illegally. But on the other hand, if they get mugged, seriously assaulted or murdered, has the government won? I don't think so, because law enforcement investigates and prosecutes violent crimes. The question then becomes how much more dangerous does the trade become when it is illegal? I think the danger increases dramatically. I can give you an example. If prostitution is legal and if the SP has trouble with her client, she can call the police for protection. If it is illegal, then she may be reluctant or hesitant to call for help. It is the same complaint that the plaintiffs had when making their suit, right?
    So when will Hillary go to Prison?

    Only the Democrats would have a potential CONVICT as their Top Presidential Candidate. Simply Pathetic

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    RobinX, this article is just re-hashing of what the conservatives already said. Of course they won't say prostitution is good. But what can they do? Like all conservative government around the world, they just ignore facts and repeat stupid lies. They say prostitution harms vulnerable people but these harms are caused by the laws themselves. ''Just to prove that prostitution ruins lives, we will ruin your life for being a prostitute''. That was the whole point of the Bedford decision. Go ahead, criminalize prostitution. That's exactly what organized crime wants.

    They do not have a clear definition of what constitutes ''prostitution''. They say how bad it is but never define it. The courts stated clearly that the current laws were too vague. Here's an interesting letter of Bradford herself to Harper:
    http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/201...stions-harper/

    Quote Originally Posted by daydreamer41 View Post
    I don't think young children should be subject to viewing how prostitutes operate. They do ask questions when they see women in scantly clothing walking around chasing cars.
    What about women who have sex for free and wear sexy revealing clothes on the streets? Restricting sexual expression of woman because they charge money and not those who do it for free is ridiculous. What about gay couples holding hands? Kids ask questions that their parents don't want to answer all the time. You can't make law just to make some people feel comfortable. They should also stop punks in funny clothings chasing cars with a squeegee.

    Not too long ago I was in the subway and there was some jehova's witness standing there being pimped by their church to sell religion. Why is that less exploitive than selling sex? What if I find that offensive and I don't want my kids to see them or talk to them? Who's going to protect MY sensibilities and morals?
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver View Post
    I don't understand what the impetus is for this legislation. It is almost like Canada is becoming more like the USA. I am really shocked. These proposals are a total overreaction to a problem that is a small part of the totality of the sex industry. It sounds like the tone of the legislation is to make the sex market synonymous with trafficking and view all sex workers as though they had been trafficked and not exercised their own free choice to work in the sex industry. I don't get it.
    That's exactly what has been happening in the US or some areas in Europe. It is a reaction by a select but growing group of feminist who view prostitution as slavery of women no matter the motivation or the will of the women who freely choose to be sex providers for $. These women are teaming up with religious groups in order to prohibit all forms of prostitution.
    So when will Hillary go to Prison?

    Only the Democrats would have a potential CONVICT as their Top Presidential Candidate. Simply Pathetic

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Siocnarf View Post
    What about women who have sex for free and wear sexy revealing clothes on the streets? Restricting sexual expression of woman because they charge money and not those who do it for free is ridiculous. What about gay couples holding hands? Kids ask questions that their parents don't want to answer all the time. You can't make law just to make some people feel comfortable. They should also stop punks in funny clothings chasing cars with a squeegee.
    I think you are getting silly. Women who are not prostitutes don't go out roaming the streets flagging down cars for hours at a time. If you want common decency and respect in return, you should be concerned for neighborhoods. I feel the same about drug deals going down on the streets. They shouldn't be tolerated.
    So when will Hillary go to Prison?

    Only the Democrats would have a potential CONVICT as their Top Presidential Candidate. Simply Pathetic

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Guys,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sidney Laflamme View Post
    ... "develop a Canada-specific plan to target the purchasers of sex and human trafficking markets through criminalizing the purchase of sex as well as any third party attempting to profit from the purchase of sex."
    Nice of them to link all prostitution to "human trafficking". It creates a much more negative connection in the minds of the public to taint paying for sex of any sort with gross acts of exploitation, and it creates a dilemma for anyone who wants to do something about true abuse in the sex industry versus whatever tolerance any voter may have toward escorting/prostitution. I agree with EB and Siocnarf. This sounds like a dirty tricks approach typical in Conservative U.S. politics that will please the predisposed flock with the effort while likely being doomed to failure at the end in court.

    Same old story.

    ,

    Merlot

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by daydreamer41 View Post
    That's exactly what has been happening in the US or some areas in Europe. It is a reaction by a select but growing group of feminist who view prostitution as slavery of women no matter the motivation or the will of the women who freely choose to be sex providers for $. These women are teaming up with religious groups in order to prohibit all forms of prostitution.
    These countries do not have the constitutional situation we have in Canada. In fact, the present ruling here could have impact in some European countries to challenge the nordic model.

    For street prostitutes, you can't compare the situation with drug deals. Drugs are illegal. Sex is not. If people in the street disturb a neighborhood, there are laws already against that without having to target prostitution. The fact of the matter is that restricting street prostitutes with laws cause more harm to them without solving their problems. It's not unlike having laws against winos and vagrants. From the same argument you could make it illegal to give money to homeless people in the street.
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •