- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
U
User-E
Guest
Dan said:
It would be awesome if MP's who are clients would step forward and admit it.
B
Boing
Guest
So what's the next step?.
U
User-E
Guest
Boing said:
It goes to a Committee who study it, they report back, then it goes to a third reading, then another debate ...
R
Robintheboywonder
Guest
Ms. Sarah said:
Never-mind stepping forward, out the filthy perverts!
B
Boing
Guest
Ms. Sarah said:
Educate me here.
How many times does it go into debates and reading before it becomes law?.
U
User-E
Guest
Boing said:
1 FIRST READING
Any idea for a new law or a change to current law is written down. The idea is now called a bill. The bill is printed and read in the House it is starting from.
2 SECOND READING
The bill is given a Second Reading in the House it is starting from, where parliamentarians debate the idea behind the bill. They consider questions such as, “Is the idea behind the bill good?” “Does it meet people’s needs?” “Who will be affected by this bill?” If the House votes for the bill and it passes this stage, it goes to a committee of the House, which usually meets in a smaller committee room outside the Chamber.
We are here:
3 COMMITTEE STAGE
At the Committee Stage, the bill is studied carefully. Committee members hold hearings or special meetings where different people inside and outside government can make comments about the bill. The committee can ask for government officials and experts, or witnesses, to come and answer questions. The committee can suggest changes or amendments to the bill when it gives its report to the House.
4 REPORT STAGE
At the Report Stage, the committee reports the bill back to the House. All parliamentarians can then debate it. During this stage, those who were not part of the committee that studied the bill can suggest changes to the bill.
5 THIRD READING
The bill is then called for a Third Reading. The parliamentarians debate it again. Sometimes they can change their minds about a bill. They might vote for it at Second Reading but not at Third Reading if they do not like the changes made to the bill. If it passes Third Reading, the bill then goes to the other House where it goes through the same stages.
6 ROYAL ASSENT
Once both the Senate and the House of Commons have passed the bill in exactly the same wording, it is given to the Governor General (or his or her appointed representative) for Royal Assent (final approval), and it can become law.
Cardinal Fang
Reviewer
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 5,717
romance said:
Well, typically unless the government refers it directly to the Supreme Court it has to wind it's way through the courts. If the Conservatives refer it to the Supreme Court directly they know it will be struck down. So they will pass the law and allow it to wind it's way through the system until it makes it's way to the Supreme Court. Best guess on this is 5 years given it took them from 2009 to 2013 to get the original law struck down. In that time the Conservative will not have to worry about it other then spend money in the Courts defending the law. Another waste of taxpayers money.
Typical course through the courts would be:
- Someone needs to be charged first so that a challenge to the law can be implemented.
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice
- Ontario Court of Appeal
- Supreme Court of Canada - final decision IF the court agrees to hear the case.
Madman
Reviewer
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 17,534
RAWD said:
I see where you're coming from but imagine how many women Peter Mackay has had, used his power to gain sexual favors and now this puritan want to be is acting like a bible thumping lunatic. These laws will be making criminals of all of us and justice is served when the yes votes are the first to TOFTT under these new laws.
Reckless88
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 37
She nailed this one.
Men who buy sex are neither “perverts”, as described by Justice Minister Peter MacKay, nor “pathetic,” as described by my usually astute Star columnist colleague Heather Mallick, oft- and self-professed feminist.
I’m a feminist, have always been a feminist, will forever remain a feminist, though no longer find it necessary to bleat and brandish that term as if firing off an F-word fusillade. It’s in my bones, my DNA, my O-positive blood type and every word I’ve ever committed to paper. What I’m most adamantly not is a feminist evangelical who will find concordance and compatibility with preachy prudes, whether the REAL Women subset of Stepford Wives or the do-gooder Agony Aunts pushing condoms and exit strategy, each end of the ideological spectrum stiff and unyielding and witheringly judgmental.
Where doctrinaire feminist meets evangelical moralist is a squishy, fetid place; the underbelly domain of male-on-female coercion and extortion where sex outside of conventional relationships always has a long slithery tail.
Lord save us from the unholy alliance of liberals and illiberals.
Why does sex — the arranging for it, the negotiating of it, the supply and demand economics that drive it — turn even clear-minded thinkers into starchy puritans?
I will not demean men who purchase sexual services as pathetic perverts, smugly assuming they’re either deviant — wanting sex doesn’t make a person creepy — or hapless losers incapable of striking up a “buy ya a drink?” conversation with a potential leg-over partner.
More on the star.com
Prostitution: Lessons from Europe’s streets
Sex worker rights: why Peter MacKay won’t get a date this Friday night
Some men indeed possess not even a modicum of social skills, thus are incapable of successfully navigating the meat-market, nor the online dating version thereof. Some are frankly repulsive and would find themselves frustratingly celibate if not for the ministrations of an undiscriminating prostitute. Some seek sexual adventure outside their existing relationships. Some are completely paralyzed by the social and religious mores in which they were raised, segregated from the exotica of women. And some simply prefer the direct-to-business shortcut of a sex-for-cash transaction, whether as a quick grunt in a back alley or thousand-dollar hookup with an escort service call girl.
It doesn’t make them corrupt or depraved. It makes them entirely normal: eager for sex — a basic human compulsion — willing to pay for it and harmless, unless in the pursuit of carnal congress they commit an act of quantifiable harm, which is something other than the agreed-upon sexual engagement.
In MacKay World — the World According to Canada’s Anal Conservative Government — men clients are all aberrant, which is why the Tories have introduced a stupidly unrealistic bill that obdurately ignores the none-too-gentle nudging of this country’s top court when it kiboshed the existing prostitution laws last December.
In Mallick World, the men are all pitiful and the women are invariably victims of gender inequality, in need of protection via infantilizing legislation that criminalizes the purchase of sex: The John Sanction.
Bill C-36 is an act of regression, foolishly formatted, reactionary rather than progressive and harm-reduction focused, as the Supreme Court was so clearly encouraging when it unanimously knocked down anti-prostitution laws prohibiting brothels, living off the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients, ruling the legislation was too broad and “grossly disproportionate.”
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote: “Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisance, but not at the cost of health, safety and live of prostitutes,” further noting that “it is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money.”
The Conservatives’ proposed crackdown bill would make it a crime to buy sex for money. It will criminalize the purchase of sex, prohibit advertising, target those who might benefit from prostitution — you might call them pimps, many prostitutes call them boyfriends and managers, though actually cohabiting with a lover puts that person at risk of being charged with pimping even if he is not in any way involved with the prostitution activity — and outlaw the sale of sex near schools and any other place where children might reasonably gather, which could reasonably be everywhere.
Sex workers were appalled but not surprised when MacKay unveiled the spectacularly wrong-minded bill, pointing out — as they did again on Saturday, during rallies across the country — that the legislation would actually make sex workers less safe, pushing them outside, into isolated city areas, rendering them easier prey to predators.
The so-called Nordic Model that inspired Bill-36 — Sweden’s Violence Against Women Act, which was actually largely written by a University of British Columbia law graduate — is deeply flawed and irrational at its core, punishing men who buy sex but not the women who sell sex. Neither merits punishment.
It codifies paternalistic attitudes toward women, projecting the very real issues surrounding sexual enslavement of illegal immigrants — which clearly needs to be aggressively investigated and prosecuted — onto every woman who makes a choice to enter the sex work field. It espouses, indeed enshrines, the view that all prostitutes are irresponsible individuals dragged into the business against their will, against their better judgment, and only because other options have been denied.
This is sometimes true and sometimes bollocks.
Prostitution is only inherently exploitative if you accept the premise that doing it for free is righteous and doing it for money is vulgar.
The rigidity of this posture recalls late feminist radical Andrea Dworkin, who famously held that all heterosexual sex — penetration with a penis — is rape “Violence is a synonym for intercourse. The penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse, a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into (violate) the boundaries of her body . . .”
Canada doesn’t need an anti-prostitution bill. It needs to decriminalize prostitution, which is what sex trade workers have been demanding as cases wound their way to the Supreme Court.
The Supremes gave Ottawa a year to come up with a reasonable piece of legislation.
This isn’t it.
This is what comes of the moralizing right getting into bed with the scolding left.
It will not survive a constitutional challenge. But in the mean time, sex workers and sex clients get screwed.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20..._fusion_of_right_and_left_lunacy_dimanno.html
Men who buy sex are neither “perverts”, as described by Justice Minister Peter MacKay, nor “pathetic,” as described by my usually astute Star columnist colleague Heather Mallick, oft- and self-professed feminist.
I’m a feminist, have always been a feminist, will forever remain a feminist, though no longer find it necessary to bleat and brandish that term as if firing off an F-word fusillade. It’s in my bones, my DNA, my O-positive blood type and every word I’ve ever committed to paper. What I’m most adamantly not is a feminist evangelical who will find concordance and compatibility with preachy prudes, whether the REAL Women subset of Stepford Wives or the do-gooder Agony Aunts pushing condoms and exit strategy, each end of the ideological spectrum stiff and unyielding and witheringly judgmental.
Where doctrinaire feminist meets evangelical moralist is a squishy, fetid place; the underbelly domain of male-on-female coercion and extortion where sex outside of conventional relationships always has a long slithery tail.
Lord save us from the unholy alliance of liberals and illiberals.
Why does sex — the arranging for it, the negotiating of it, the supply and demand economics that drive it — turn even clear-minded thinkers into starchy puritans?
I will not demean men who purchase sexual services as pathetic perverts, smugly assuming they’re either deviant — wanting sex doesn’t make a person creepy — or hapless losers incapable of striking up a “buy ya a drink?” conversation with a potential leg-over partner.
More on the star.com
Prostitution: Lessons from Europe’s streets
Sex worker rights: why Peter MacKay won’t get a date this Friday night
Some men indeed possess not even a modicum of social skills, thus are incapable of successfully navigating the meat-market, nor the online dating version thereof. Some are frankly repulsive and would find themselves frustratingly celibate if not for the ministrations of an undiscriminating prostitute. Some seek sexual adventure outside their existing relationships. Some are completely paralyzed by the social and religious mores in which they were raised, segregated from the exotica of women. And some simply prefer the direct-to-business shortcut of a sex-for-cash transaction, whether as a quick grunt in a back alley or thousand-dollar hookup with an escort service call girl.
It doesn’t make them corrupt or depraved. It makes them entirely normal: eager for sex — a basic human compulsion — willing to pay for it and harmless, unless in the pursuit of carnal congress they commit an act of quantifiable harm, which is something other than the agreed-upon sexual engagement.
In MacKay World — the World According to Canada’s Anal Conservative Government — men clients are all aberrant, which is why the Tories have introduced a stupidly unrealistic bill that obdurately ignores the none-too-gentle nudging of this country’s top court when it kiboshed the existing prostitution laws last December.
In Mallick World, the men are all pitiful and the women are invariably victims of gender inequality, in need of protection via infantilizing legislation that criminalizes the purchase of sex: The John Sanction.
Bill C-36 is an act of regression, foolishly formatted, reactionary rather than progressive and harm-reduction focused, as the Supreme Court was so clearly encouraging when it unanimously knocked down anti-prostitution laws prohibiting brothels, living off the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients, ruling the legislation was too broad and “grossly disproportionate.”
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote: “Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisance, but not at the cost of health, safety and live of prostitutes,” further noting that “it is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money.”
The Conservatives’ proposed crackdown bill would make it a crime to buy sex for money. It will criminalize the purchase of sex, prohibit advertising, target those who might benefit from prostitution — you might call them pimps, many prostitutes call them boyfriends and managers, though actually cohabiting with a lover puts that person at risk of being charged with pimping even if he is not in any way involved with the prostitution activity — and outlaw the sale of sex near schools and any other place where children might reasonably gather, which could reasonably be everywhere.
Sex workers were appalled but not surprised when MacKay unveiled the spectacularly wrong-minded bill, pointing out — as they did again on Saturday, during rallies across the country — that the legislation would actually make sex workers less safe, pushing them outside, into isolated city areas, rendering them easier prey to predators.
The so-called Nordic Model that inspired Bill-36 — Sweden’s Violence Against Women Act, which was actually largely written by a University of British Columbia law graduate — is deeply flawed and irrational at its core, punishing men who buy sex but not the women who sell sex. Neither merits punishment.
It codifies paternalistic attitudes toward women, projecting the very real issues surrounding sexual enslavement of illegal immigrants — which clearly needs to be aggressively investigated and prosecuted — onto every woman who makes a choice to enter the sex work field. It espouses, indeed enshrines, the view that all prostitutes are irresponsible individuals dragged into the business against their will, against their better judgment, and only because other options have been denied.
This is sometimes true and sometimes bollocks.
Prostitution is only inherently exploitative if you accept the premise that doing it for free is righteous and doing it for money is vulgar.
The rigidity of this posture recalls late feminist radical Andrea Dworkin, who famously held that all heterosexual sex — penetration with a penis — is rape “Violence is a synonym for intercourse. The penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse, a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into (violate) the boundaries of her body . . .”
Canada doesn’t need an anti-prostitution bill. It needs to decriminalize prostitution, which is what sex trade workers have been demanding as cases wound their way to the Supreme Court.
The Supremes gave Ottawa a year to come up with a reasonable piece of legislation.
This isn’t it.
This is what comes of the moralizing right getting into bed with the scolding left.
It will not survive a constitutional challenge. But in the mean time, sex workers and sex clients get screwed.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20..._fusion_of_right_and_left_lunacy_dimanno.html
U
User-E
Guest
romance said:
So if all SP's set up a video camera in their room, they could claim they're making porn and they're getting paid to act, not to have sex. Hmmmmmm
U
User-E
Guest
This article quotes one of our valuable members -Chris Atchison (SexSafetySecurity). Thanks Chris for all your hard work! /-Thumbs-up::/
Should the prostitution law debate hear from johns?
Clients will bear brunt of consequences in prostitution bill, as Ottawa moves to protect sex workers.
Sex, with a few notable exceptions, is a physical act undertaken by two people. When money changes hands, it's called prostitution. And that's where a whole lot of trouble exists.
Bill C-36 is the latest instalment in the world's oldest controversy.
On Monday, NDP justice critic Francoise Boivin told reporters the justice committee will meet the week of July 7 to hear testimony on the bill.
Ottawa's new law on prostitution aims its legislative guns squarely at the consumers of sex services — "the perverts," as Justice Minister Peter MacKay has called them.
Chris Atchison, a sociologist at the University of Victoria, prefers the term "johns." He's studied sex buyers for 18 years and has published two of the world's largest studies on the subject. Atchison says that what's missing from the new law is a basic understanding of how many johns there are in Canada and what motivates them to buy sex.
He says the best comparative numbers are from Britain, New Zealand and Australia, where four to seven per cent of the male population have purchased sex. "[But for Canada] there is no indication at the broader level. Which then begs the question, how is it that we can have this legislation that has been proposed to address a problem when nobody knows the magnitude of the so-called problem."
In his research, Atchison has spoken to "literally thousands" of men who bought sex. The act itself is the main reason they visit prostitutes, but it is not the only one. Johns have told him they want companionship, conversation, physical touch. Some are handicapped or suffering from degenerative diseases that leave them paralyzed.
Perhaps most surprising, there are johns who have long-term connections with a sex provider that in some cases last for years. They are what he calls "pseudo-monogamous relationships."
In a recent interview on CBC Radio's The 180, James Rodney admitted to having been a regular user of sexual services in the 1990s. He was working at a fly-in job in a remote area of Canada and didn't feel having a one-night stand was fair to the woman.
"[Prostitution] was an option for human contact, a sexual release. The comfort and pampering that a sex service provider can give," Rodney explained to 180 host Jim Brown.
"People see sexual service providers for the same range of reasons that people get involved in heterosexual, non-commercial relationships. Seeing this as some sort of deviant or very different [relationship] from how people engage in their day-to-day heterosexual relations that are non-commercial is a mistake," says Atchison.
If anyone is mistaken, argues Julia Beazley, it's Atchison. "[Prostitutes'] lived experiences tell us that most men buy sex because it is about power. And sometimes that's violent power, sometimes that's aggressive power, but sometimes it's just the sense that for this time period, I have the social, economic and sexual power over this other person," says the policy analyst from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, an umbrella group of evangelical Christians in Canada.
The Christian group considers itself abolitionist when it comes to prostitution. "I don't think that the fact that prostitution has been around for a very, very, very long time means that we have to accept it as an inevitable. I don't think that buying sex is an intractable part of male nature. I think that we can change these things," says Beazley.
If an evangelical group seems predictable in its stance on prostitution, consider that the view is shared by the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, among others. "The substance of our positioning, of our argumentation on this issue — what we want to see happen and why — is very, very much in line with feminist organizations," says Beazley.
Cherry Smiley, middle right, of Vancouver and Sue Martin of Ottawa join others as they rally in front the Supreme Court of Canada. Abolitionists don't believe they have to accept prostitution as inevitable in society. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press) She believes this bill turns the approach to ridding society of prostitution on its head. It puts the blame on the john and treats prostitutes as victims of exploitation. "We are concerned with the protection and the care of the vulnerable," says Beazley. She lauds the government for this legislation and adds, "They've courageously challenged the belief that men are entitled to paid sexual access to women's bodies."
But for others, the idea of ridding the world of prostitution is naive in the extreme. Not only will sex sellers remain a fixture in society, but this law will be challenged on new grounds.
John Lowman, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University who has studied prostitution and the law since 1977, thinks Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — equality rights — will get a workout this time around. He explains that the proposed law would allow a woman to sell sex without fear of prosecution. "Then the full weight of the law can be brought against the man who buys those sexual services. It is institutionalized, state-sponsored entrapment," he says.
On top of that, argues Lowman, this approach will just put prostitutes at as much risk of violence as they were under the old regime — the exact opposite of what this law is supposed to do. "I think that [abolitionists] are quite prepared to sacrifice sex sellers in the name of their particular ideology, which is about creating what they think is an equal society by abolishing prostitution," says Lowman.
He says this law will recreate the Vancouver enforcement experiment in the 1990s, when the police agreed to only go after johns and pimps if prostitutes restricted their activities to the industrial areas of the Downtown Eastside. "That area became the killing fields of Vancouver. Where Mr. [Robert] Pickton picked up most of the 49 victims that we think he is responsible for murdering," says Lowman.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-the-prostitution-law-debate-hear-from-johns-1.2675048
Should the prostitution law debate hear from johns?
Clients will bear brunt of consequences in prostitution bill, as Ottawa moves to protect sex workers.
Sex, with a few notable exceptions, is a physical act undertaken by two people. When money changes hands, it's called prostitution. And that's where a whole lot of trouble exists.
Bill C-36 is the latest instalment in the world's oldest controversy.
On Monday, NDP justice critic Francoise Boivin told reporters the justice committee will meet the week of July 7 to hear testimony on the bill.
Ottawa's new law on prostitution aims its legislative guns squarely at the consumers of sex services — "the perverts," as Justice Minister Peter MacKay has called them.
Chris Atchison, a sociologist at the University of Victoria, prefers the term "johns." He's studied sex buyers for 18 years and has published two of the world's largest studies on the subject. Atchison says that what's missing from the new law is a basic understanding of how many johns there are in Canada and what motivates them to buy sex.
He says the best comparative numbers are from Britain, New Zealand and Australia, where four to seven per cent of the male population have purchased sex. "[But for Canada] there is no indication at the broader level. Which then begs the question, how is it that we can have this legislation that has been proposed to address a problem when nobody knows the magnitude of the so-called problem."
In his research, Atchison has spoken to "literally thousands" of men who bought sex. The act itself is the main reason they visit prostitutes, but it is not the only one. Johns have told him they want companionship, conversation, physical touch. Some are handicapped or suffering from degenerative diseases that leave them paralyzed.
Perhaps most surprising, there are johns who have long-term connections with a sex provider that in some cases last for years. They are what he calls "pseudo-monogamous relationships."
In a recent interview on CBC Radio's The 180, James Rodney admitted to having been a regular user of sexual services in the 1990s. He was working at a fly-in job in a remote area of Canada and didn't feel having a one-night stand was fair to the woman.
"[Prostitution] was an option for human contact, a sexual release. The comfort and pampering that a sex service provider can give," Rodney explained to 180 host Jim Brown.
"People see sexual service providers for the same range of reasons that people get involved in heterosexual, non-commercial relationships. Seeing this as some sort of deviant or very different [relationship] from how people engage in their day-to-day heterosexual relations that are non-commercial is a mistake," says Atchison.
If anyone is mistaken, argues Julia Beazley, it's Atchison. "[Prostitutes'] lived experiences tell us that most men buy sex because it is about power. And sometimes that's violent power, sometimes that's aggressive power, but sometimes it's just the sense that for this time period, I have the social, economic and sexual power over this other person," says the policy analyst from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, an umbrella group of evangelical Christians in Canada.
The Christian group considers itself abolitionist when it comes to prostitution. "I don't think that the fact that prostitution has been around for a very, very, very long time means that we have to accept it as an inevitable. I don't think that buying sex is an intractable part of male nature. I think that we can change these things," says Beazley.
If an evangelical group seems predictable in its stance on prostitution, consider that the view is shared by the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, among others. "The substance of our positioning, of our argumentation on this issue — what we want to see happen and why — is very, very much in line with feminist organizations," says Beazley.
Cherry Smiley, middle right, of Vancouver and Sue Martin of Ottawa join others as they rally in front the Supreme Court of Canada. Abolitionists don't believe they have to accept prostitution as inevitable in society. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press) She believes this bill turns the approach to ridding society of prostitution on its head. It puts the blame on the john and treats prostitutes as victims of exploitation. "We are concerned with the protection and the care of the vulnerable," says Beazley. She lauds the government for this legislation and adds, "They've courageously challenged the belief that men are entitled to paid sexual access to women's bodies."
But for others, the idea of ridding the world of prostitution is naive in the extreme. Not only will sex sellers remain a fixture in society, but this law will be challenged on new grounds.
John Lowman, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University who has studied prostitution and the law since 1977, thinks Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — equality rights — will get a workout this time around. He explains that the proposed law would allow a woman to sell sex without fear of prosecution. "Then the full weight of the law can be brought against the man who buys those sexual services. It is institutionalized, state-sponsored entrapment," he says.
On top of that, argues Lowman, this approach will just put prostitutes at as much risk of violence as they were under the old regime — the exact opposite of what this law is supposed to do. "I think that [abolitionists] are quite prepared to sacrifice sex sellers in the name of their particular ideology, which is about creating what they think is an equal society by abolishing prostitution," says Lowman.
He says this law will recreate the Vancouver enforcement experiment in the 1990s, when the police agreed to only go after johns and pimps if prostitutes restricted their activities to the industrial areas of the Downtown Eastside. "That area became the killing fields of Vancouver. Where Mr. [Robert] Pickton picked up most of the 49 victims that we think he is responsible for murdering," says Lowman.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-the-prostitution-law-debate-hear-from-johns-1.2675048
L
Lefty
Guest
[h=1]Peter MacKay Ducks Question On Referring Anti-Prostitution Bill To Top Court[/h]
Embarrassed he should be.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/05/peter-mackay-prostitution-bill_n_5456020.html
Embarrassed he should be.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/05/peter-mackay-prostitution-bill_n_5456020.html
