How-to-lobby-against-C-36-without-outing-yourself

[Fred Zed]

______________________________________

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?485325-How-to-lobby-against-C-36-without-outing-yourself

 

[SylvainP]

Thanks Fred! Good Idea!

 

[hungry101]

This was worth reading. I got into it on a shooting forum and I was outed by some police officers. "Sounds like a perp" they said. I said "why don't you go out and catch some bad guys."

But the one that is missing is the following: "So it is legal to sell but it is illegal to buy? Explain that one to me."

 

[Siocnarf]

"Sounds like a perp" they said.

Tell them it's legal now and calling you a perp is a defamation that should get him suspended.

"So it is legal to sell but it is illegal to buy? Explain that one to me."

The initial logic is based on the stereotype of the pimp. There is always a pimp and the transaction is really between the client and the pimp. The woman might collect the money, but she is not the one actually being paid. But now, the bill recognizes that indies can work and hire non-exploitive third parties, so the argument to criminalize their clients becomes a complete farce. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to get passed until it's someone else problem.

Anyway, I wrote a letter to my MP (member of parliament, not massage parlor )

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

The arguments about financial costs and use of police time have some validity, but that's all argumentative like whether the LE should spend time and money on shoplifters and carjacking versus vandalism and scam artists. That becomes too much about opinion rather than genuine concern for the individual and public welfare. I'm not sure about what the exact principles of Canadian law are, but it seems the rights and safety of the escort should be paramount when these laws are formulated. Maybe that is what making sex "legal to sell but it is illegal to buy" supposed to be about in some way that doesn't make sense. I'd say the best arguments would center on the what greater risks the escorts might face regarding exploitation and threats. I think this poster got it right on Terb:

"You may have all the right in the world to comment, but if you simply bang on about how men should be allowed to pay to get their wick dipped, you are not being a "thoughtful commentator". No way, no how. But if you frame the discussion in terms of harms and costs, you may well get their attention."

A self-serving argument will be self-defeating. Concern about real risk would be much more effective.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[man77777]

To convince them you have to go on their fields. Stupid arguments like that would be efficient : "I'm a mother of 3daughters, I go to church every sunday (lol). I don't particulary like the fact there are prostitutes. But when I try to imagine a world without these women, I'm afraid for my daughters. The poor guys that haven't any others choices than seeing prostitutes to have sex need them, and in your opinion what will happen if they don't have these solution anymore ? I don't want my daughter to be raped, I pray everyday for protitutes (lol), but try to eradicate the prostiution would be a very dangerous solution for women safety in our country."

 

[Merlot]

Hmmmm,

I don't want my daughter to be raped, I pray everyday for protitutes (lol), but try to eradicate the prostiution would be a very dangerous solution for women safety in our country."

Interesting, but it would be argued that the statement in effect says let's protect our daughters from would-be rapists and isolate the rapist (a crime of violence not just forced sex) with an escort and let her take the brunt of whatever risk that sort of person might bring to a pretty hidden encounter. In this case you would probably be losing the escort rights and safety argument, as well as seeming to unintentionally characterize at least a segment of sexual hobbyists as threats to any women by focusing on shifting the threat of "rapists" as a main point of the law. This is a losing argument in my view.

If you go beyond the view that the sex industry is about consenting choices between stable adults you will only empower moralists and fear-mongers...as well as discourage the ladies.



Merlot

 

[longtimers]

Boysz Guysz!

I have a dream... after the C36 adoption. Here's what Canada Street will be in a year when this law passed.

http://actualites.sympatico.ca/nouvelles/blogue/petasse-chienn-et-autres-qualificatifs

The real hunt begins
Longtimer

 

[man77777]

My post was more a joke than anything else, but I really think that the only thing that could dissuade a moralist to pass this law is to think that he only has the choice between more rapes and prostitution, that's probably the manichean way someone who see sexuality as a vice can be convince. The only way they can tolerate prostitution would be as a a horrible vice to avoid horrible rapes. Anyway, the law will pass...

 

[gurgeh85]

http://actualites.sympatico.ca/nouvelles/blogue/petasse-chienn-et-autres-qualificatifs

This seems like a good way to get punched in the mouth in New York City! Women there just don't take shit...

 

[Siocnarf]

A self-serving argument will be self-defeating. Concern about real risk would be much more effective.

Every prohibitionist argument is self-serving (and hopefully they will be self-defeating in the long run. There is no point having a cost/benefit argument with people who put the bible on par with scientific publications. For them, the moral gain outweighs the murder of a hundred prostitutes.

The main debate should be: do we have a reason to criminalize a consensual activity. You have to have a reason to take away people's constitutional freedom. It's not just about the right of the client, but the right of both parties. Why should we force women to have sex only for free?

The only way they can tolerate prostitution would be as a a horrible vice to avoid horrible rapes. Anyway, the law will pass...

They already see prostitution as rape, and even worse, because the same victim get it multiple times instead of just once. But actually, it is known that Sweden has an exceptionally high rate of rape. Once again, people don't care about scientific data. This may not be a direct cause-effect, but when they waste their time convincing people prostitution is a crime, serious crimes end up being overlooked. In fact, Sweden has the most repressive law about sex in the western world, not just about prostitution. They are a highly repressed and violent country under a veneer of morality.

 

[hungry101]

Siocnarf has it right. This isn't about whats right and whats is wrong otr protecting anyone in particular. This is about the latest bandwagon technique t get reelected. Take the publics mind off what is really wrong and talk about something they can understand: protecting woman from trafficking and underaged prostitution etc. Is there a problem? There doesn't have to be one. Watch the movie "Wag The Dog." This is what is going on here.

One wrench I would like to throw in all of this. What about male gigolos? They must be abused and subject to trafficking and just as vulnerable as the female SP. Will these laws protect male gigolos? Do not they deserve the same protection as the female SP?

If I ever get busted I will say I am a male gigolo and I should be afforded the same protection! This was a misunderstanding and I was selling and not buying..

 

[Siocnarf]

The law itself does not say anything about male or female. Anyone who buy sex is a criminal.
You give a little nooky to your rich wife in exchange for a new piece of haberdashery? She's going to jail!
What if the ''consideration'' you pay to get a sex act is a different sex act? (I'll do this if you do that). Then you are both criminals. Perverts!

In fact, just making a woman pregnant could be a crime. You get sex and she gets the baby she wanted. It's even worse because you are also trafficking an unborn foetus

 

[man77777]

Is a "I feel so alone, that I sometimes need to see SP to talk" could be defendable as they won't have any proof about what I did with her (except if she testifies od course)..

 

[Siocnarf]

Hey, when you pay 200$/h to see a lawyer that's all they do: talk. So why not pay a pretty woman just to talk? She going to give you good advice and new insights on all sort of subjects that your wife does not want to discuss. Certainly worth good money.

Or say that you are doing like Ghandi and taking a woman just to lie down next to you and test your resolve. You're paying her specifically NOT to have sex! There's no law that say you can't pay for the absence of sex. There's nothing in the bill about presumption of guilt for clients.

 

[Fred Zed]

Opposing-Bill-C-36-Things-You-Can-Do

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?485499-Opposing-Bill-C-36-Things-You-Can-Do