Montreal Escorts

It's Official Canada has adopted Nordic Model Prostitution Law

kok

New Member
Oct 12, 2012
82
1
0
One of the experts who gave testimony, Rising Angels founder Katarina Macleod (which helps exiting sex trade workers, and is herself an ex-sex worker), had this to say:

" Prostitution *is* violence against women and these are "not normal men" who seek them out."



Thanks a lot for your judgmental blanket assessment of the entire population of johns. I suppose you'd be equally as happy hearing that all escorts are damaged goods (why not push it further and say that they're all crack addicts living on the street?)

All of this is so insane when I consider the way I got into this hobby. This girl, acquaintance of mine for a number of years, one day admitted to me that she was an escort. She came, as far as I know, from a nice home in the west island. She told me about the business and the way she did it. She stayed in the business just over a year, to buy herself a brand new jeep, and then left. She told me that one day some guy came up to her, gave her his card and let her know about the opportunity. She refused at first but then reconsidered.

A lot of these arguments being thrown around in these hearings make close to zero sense:

1) No woman, given the choice between escorting and an equally well paying job, would do escorting.

Not only does it assume that no woman ever gets into this business because she likes her job (ie: the "even if she came to it of her own free will, she must be broken goods and mentally sick"), but the above statement alludes to a reality that only exists in economic fantasy land. Given the opportunity to be degraded in the position of minimum wage service worker or being a $200/hr escort, there is a not an insignificant number of individuals who feel by far more respected in the second profession. The assertion that prostitution is last resort of drug addicts that live in squalor and that it should be criminalized does little to prevent those individuals from entering that state in the first place.

The hearings only talk about men who brutalize and disrespect prostitutes. This is so ironic for someone who has sometimes paid hundreds of dollars to be disrespected on a number of occasions, leaving me to ask who is really getting exploited here. Again this doesn't seem to reflect the realities of people on this forum so I guess I should think that making me into a criminal will do great things for those poor exploited native women.

Another fun fact, the day the married man gets busted for being a john (and we're talking about lawyers, stockbrokers, and politicians, a well known fact from some of the girls I've known), there goes his chances of having a happy family, there goes his kids, his career. You're going to drive many of your most economically contributing individuals into the ground and what will be left of them afterwards?

What about those men who are naturally promiscuous? (Erm, most if not all men?) The fact is, everyone can get laid. But between going clubbing 3 times a week. Spending ridiculous time, effort and money to get laid instead of running your economy and putting relatively much less effort to get the same thing, I'd rather not waste everybody's time. "Seducing" a girl with the idea of just fucking her 2-3 times (sometimes with her reticence because she understandably doesn't want to give up her goods too soon) then never returning her calls (worse: getting tear soaked voice mails or even getting stalked, it's happened), is to me a FAR FAR more enormous sign of disrespect and a waste of time than having a relatively quick, consensual and easy transaction with a willing party (who's often better looking and more skillful anyway).

Monogamy is on the way to the graveyard and you're breaking up one of the only medications for men who aren't comfortable with the idea of giving their increasingly career-centered wives the entire monopoly on sex.

Anyway on a more realistic note, it will be interesting to see the real effects on demand and supply when this law passes. If it detracts men, then prices will go down. If it detracts women, than the opposite, so that only the wealthier can permit themselves the right to un-hypocritically purchase sex (the rest has to waste time with dates and club pick-ups). What will it do for those who are already illegally being forced to do this against their will?

EDIT: "Prostitution is a form of violence" JESUS
 

BookerL

Gorgeous ladies Fanatic
Apr 29, 2014
5,789
7
0
Northern emisphere
One of the experts who gave testimony, Rising Angels founder Katarina Macleod (which helps exiting sex trade workers, and is herself an ex-sex worker), had this to say:

" Prostitution *is* violence against women and these are "not normal men" who seek them out."

What about those men who are naturally promiscuous? (Erm, most if not all men?) The fact is,



EDIT: "Prostitution is a form of violence" JESUS
HI all
Nice testimony Kok
"not normal men"
What would be the definition of normal men ?A Eunuch maybe ?LOL
One of the experts who gave testimony, Rising Angels founder Katarina Macleod
When a public figure provides a public opinion ,They do not what they think, but what is more pleasing and appealing to general public .
In my 20 years career I have girls that have serviced politicians,famous actors ,singers,Police officers,
Doctors,lawyers ,Judges ,Cinema producers ,Event producers ,NHL hockey players many diffent athletes ,even woman on woman Celebes's sexual desire is not only a human male trait it dose include the females
Reality and political correctness or two different things ?
Religious group still constitute a very large part of the electorate !Political strategies cannot forget them !
Supreme Court Judge are nominated not elected there view and less affected by general public opinions It becomes a matter of law !!
Any how a wise men once said I quote Proverbs 4:18 The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.
Final wording needs to be out before we see the real strategy to continue our favorite abnormal hobby !LOL
Good luck to all
From a wild sex and pussy craving guy
BookerL
 

man77777

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2011
1,683
37
48
VERY good news, indeed !

Canadian gvt should think about it : "les moyens mis en œuvre pour verbaliser les clients « pourraient être autrement mieux employés » s'ils étaient affectés à la lutte contre le proxénétisme et la traite."
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
They mentioned this today in Committee in the house of commons. I'm curious to see if removing sanctions for clients could be proposed as an amendment. But I'm pretty sure Harper would not accept that amendment.
 

HumphreyB

Member
Sep 3, 2009
52
1
8
The senate committee in France also said it was impossible to reconcile from a jurisprudential point of view (“incoherent”), a proposed law which says prostitution is permissible, with penalising clients.
This is the fundamental logical flaw with C36 – it decriminalizes prostitution (and solicitation) by allowing women to sell sex, and criminalizes it by not allowing men to buy it. The Supreme Court Justices in Bedford referenced this illogicality to Charter rights, by saying if it is legal for women to sell sex, they must be allowed to do so in a safe environment, which effectively means one where neither party is trying to hide from the law....C36 has not changed this situation.
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
In fact, C-36 says that prostitution is a harmful crime but that prostitutes are not liable for their part of the crime. This is more complex than just saying that selling is legal, although that's what it amounts to.

Two ways to interpret this in my opinion:

-either selling is a legal activity, in which case they have a right to do it under safe conditions.

-or, they really are victims and the first priority is to protect them from harm.

Either way, criminalizing clients causes direct physical harm and is unacceptable.

Some witness in Committee (I forget which one)said something good: this law means that those women who will try to exit are worthy of rights and protection, while those who cannot exit or don't want to are not worthy of human rights.
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
Yes, and in fact, Sweden recognizes that the law has some harmful effects on prostitutes. In the 2010 report they stated that it was a good thing that the law increased stigma and made the work more dangerous, because this would act as an incentive for exit. Obviously what is an acceptable harm in Sweden is not acceptable here under Bedford.
 

frontenac

Member
Aug 17, 2003
84
0
6
64
Québec
Visit site
On va aussi régler tous les problèmes de vol à l'étalage au pays...c'est simple... on vas abolir le commerce au détail..... Mais on vas pas fermer les magasins, on vas juste arrêter les clients !!!!!
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
I started reading it and it's interesting, because for the first time they give some indication about jurisprudence concerning what is a sex act. In fact even things that do not involve physical contacts can constitute prostitution. However pornography does not constitute a sexual service. But apparently lap dances could be.

One thing interesting to quote: ''Another case held that the phrase “sexual services for consideration” is not intended to apply to consensual actions between those having an affinity towards one another''
Does that mean that if the escorts testifies that she likes you then it's not prostitution? And if you follow the message of the church and love everyone then prostitution does not in fact exist.

It's funny how they explain how it will be consistent with Bedford, because prostitutes are allowed to work indoors, hire bodyguards and communicate. They seem to forget that by making buying illegal this all becomes irrelevant. All they have to do is find a way to turn a profit without having clients or bribing the police so they leave their business alone or get some criminal organization to hide them. All perfectly acceptable according to the constitution I suppose.
 

BookerL

Gorgeous ladies Fanatic
Apr 29, 2014
5,789
7
0
Northern emisphere
quote: “sexual services for consideration” is not intended to apply to consensual actions between those having an affinity towards one another''
Does that mean that if the escorts testifies that she likes you then it's not prostitution?
Hi all
The beauties of the laws ,The technicalities ,Loopholes of legal jargons !!!:
Final wording will have most probably have some, lets hope !!!!!
So hobbying will go on ???
Will Bill C-36 finally be amended ?
French Senate rejected criminalizing the purchase of sex!
What is more likely to happen here ?

Cheers
BookerL
 

Bobinnyc

New Member
Jul 27, 2013
56
1
0
I started reading it and it's interesting, because for the first time they give some indication about jurisprudence concerning what is a sex act. In fact even things that do not involve physical contacts can constitute prostitution. However pornography does not constitute a sexual service.

One thing important to quote: ''Another case held that the phrase “sexual services for consideration” is not intended to apply to consensual actions between those having an affinity towards one another''
Does that mean that if the escorts testifies that she likes you then it's not prostitution?

Lol. I'm not sure but it's scary that lap dancing can be considered a sexual service. I'm an American and after reading this law it resembles something issued from the Taliban.

This law does not just have an asymmetrical approach, it's downright incoherent and illogical. The goal is to reduce demand but they're allowing the selling of sexual services? Really? This proposal would be laughed out of US Courts. We give lip service to prostitution laws here, but the escort industry thrives in NY/NJ in part because many agencies are smart enough to pay Uncle Sam the tax man. I'd love to know if these Canadian "victims" will be required to pay the Canadian government it's fair share, and how the government will feel about the lost tax revenue from agencies that presumably will shut down
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
The beauties of the laws ,The technicalities ,Loopholes of legal jargons !!!:
Final wording will have most probably have some, lets hope !!!!!

About this technical paper, I'm not sure what is the goal of it. I guess it states their intents, but I am no lawyer and can't say if what they say is true and if their explanation accurately represent the interpretation of the law. The only thing that will matter is what will be in the book. Technical reports and preambles will not be in the book.

Everyone says they should drop the provision that criminalizes prostitutes in public. Even an expert who was involved in Sweden says that this would be unconstitutional. I suppose this amendment will be proposed. During Committee, one Liberal MP implied many times that he did not believe the government would accept any amendments (even though MacKay said he was open to some).

Reverdy, it's also funny that they say the studies against the Nordic model were mostly qualitative. Qualitative studies are the only way of getting a realistic picture with prostitution. It's impossible to have real statistics on a group that is constantly hiding. The criteria for a good study is if it's been published in a peer reviewed journal. The government cites Evangilical report because that whom they are talking to.
 

BookerL

Gorgeous ladies Fanatic
Apr 29, 2014
5,789
7
0
Northern emisphere
Adam Dodek is a member of the University of Ottawa’s Public Law Group and the author of the new book Solicitor-Client Privilege.

Minister of Justice Peter MacKay has confidently asserted two things about Bill C-36, the Government’s new proposed prostitution law: that it will certainly be challenged in the courts and that it is constitutional. Mr. MacKay is undoubtedly correct that there will another round in the legal battle over the country’s prostitution laws that will make its way back to the Supreme Court. Until then, we will not know if he is correct about the bill’s constitutionality.
More Related to this Story


Emmett Macfarlane Was this the most offensive question ever asked by an MP?


No outside advice sought when drafting prostitution bill, MacKay says


Tom Flanagan The prostitution bill is a bizarre work of moral panic

Mr. MacKay can, however, back up his second claim by showing Members of Parliament and Canadians the legal advice that supports his confident assertion. And he should.

Canadian governments have remained steadfast in their refusal to publicly reveal the legal advice that forms the basis for many of their decisions. Governments love to rely on solicitor-client privilege – the protection afforded by the law to confidential communications between a client and lawyer. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized solicitor-client privilege as a fundamental legal and civil right that enjoys constitutional protection in certain circumstances. For reasons that I have argued elsewhere, it does not make a lot of sense to talk about the government enjoying such constitutional protection.

However, this right of solicitor-client privilege applies to the client, and the client – in this case the government – can waive that right. Rarely have governments chosen to do so. In this, the Harper government is no different from its predecessors. If anything, it is better. It opened the door to the musty secret world of legal advice in the Nadon appointment when it released the legal opinion provided to the government by former Supreme Court of Canada justice Ian Binnie. Kudos to Mr. MacKay and the Harper government for doing so. The release of the Binnie opinion facilitated a vibrant debate about the legality of the Nadon appointment. That the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately decided against the government’s opinion is beside the point.

The point is that the government released a legal opinion and the sky did not fall. I have argued that government should release legal opinions because it is in the public interest to do so. Governments exercise great power in enacting laws or in making appointments and they do so based on legal advice that authorizes them to exercise such power. They should demonstrate the basis for the exercise of that power.

This assertion frightens many people in government, especially lawyers. I have had great debates with some government lawyers about this who fear a “chilling effect” if their legal advice is or can be released. I don’t buy that argument. First, all public servants have a duty to provide “fearless advice.” Lawyers in government are no different. Second, other countries release their government legal advice without the state collapsing.

In the United States, you can find legal opinions from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel on a special website. The Attorneys General of each of the 50 states release legal advice, to varying degrees. In Britain, the public inquiry in to the Iraq War sifted through the various legal advice. It is not clear why legal advice in Canada should be a special case.

This government is uniquely placed to lift the veil of secrecy that shrouds government legal advice. It came to power in 2006 promising Canadians more accountability. Releasing some legal opinions would be consistent with this pledge. On Bill C-36, Mr. MacKay is surely correct: a legal challenge is inevitable. The government should place its legal cards on the table now.

Recent article from the Globe And Mail
Regards
BookerL
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
The more I think about it, the more I think this kind of law could in fact increase demand and supply here. We know the present law will not decrease demand, because clients were already criminalized in most instances under the old laws. If prostitutes are less criminalized than before, wouldn't that incite more women to do it? Some women who were afraid of the previous law might decide to try it now. The law relies on the assumption that all women do it under duress and would just jump out if they were not criminalized.

For comparison, if we stopped criminalizing drug dealers then the supply would definitely sky rocket.
 
Toronto Escorts