Ontario Decision This Monday

[Madman]

I don't trust Harper and his right wing base at all. I think he's going to tighten up the laws to our detriment. I am hoping I'm wrong.

 

[Rebecca Richardson]

Handful of agency owners (for and against) are talking about it on Newstalk1010 today.

 

[train]

I don't trust Harper and his right wing base at all. I think he's going to tighten up the laws to our detriment. I am hoping I'm wrong.

People have been saying the same about abortion and same sex marriages. After 5 years you still buying the secret agenda bull the Libs are sreading ?

There is one maverick female Conservative MP in BC who wants to ban sex I think but other than that the Government I think is happy to let the Provincial government of McQuinty fight this one. As long as the pimp, street and trafficing clauses stay in I'm guessing everyone wants this to fade into the background.

 

[Esco!]

Handful of agency owners (for and against) are talking about it on Newstalk1010 today.

Why would an agency owner be against??? :dontknow:

 

[Rebecca Richardson]

Why would an agency owner be against??? :dontknow:

Jillian@Cupids is against the ruling: she said that the ruling would mandate licenses, most women won't get licenses and that will push it underground into a black(er?) market. Her response to John Tory's comment about her staff (drivers and phone girls) currently operating against the avails law was that she's never known anyone to be charged for that. Her Twitter says she's glad that part is off the books anyways. It was her aired view that this ruling makes the industry more dangerous, not less. Can't say I agree but she's got a point.
(Jillian, if you see this and I'm presenting your side incorrectly lmk/correct me, its been a long day with many discussions and they're all starting to blur.)

 

[MUSE]

I'm going to disagree with Jilian on this one. Currently hundreds of Dancers & MPA's are licensed. That info is not public record. So Escort licenses would be the same.

 

[HOF]

*street workers or outdoor sex workers, handsome. Let's celebrate my new-found ability to legally give Christmas gifts by also respecting the right to self-identify.

Rebecca for Christmas, now that you can legally give gifts, I'd like to fornicate vigorously with you in multiple positions for several hours. I think that it's time to soak another mattress

 

[L._s.]

They have 30 days to appeal. And the government has been given 1 year to rewrite the law books:

Does this mean that a John can still get charged for visiting an incall location until the government rewrites criminal code sections or the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the Ontario Court of Appeal Decision?

It appears based on my review of another site that many Johns were recently charged for visiting incall locations...

 

[HOF]

This is a sad day indeed. I believe the Federal government will follow the will of majority of the population and put an end to prostitution. We need to help people who cannot help themselves. A small battle may have been won due to a weak Canadian Constitution but the war will be won by our elected officials.

Hey Bible Bitch!


Why don't you go organize a dinner party to reform the morons, oops mormons!

As long as men get boners, women will be in business!


​

 

[L._s.]

Jillian@Cupids is against the ruling: she said that the ruling would mandate licenses, most women won't get licenses and that will push it underground into a black(er?) market. Her response to John Tory's comment about her staff (drivers and phone girls) currently operating against the avails law was that she's never known anyone to be charged for that. Her Twitter says she's glad that part is off the books anyways. It was her aired view that this ruling makes the industry more dangerous, not less. Can't say I agree but she's got a point.
(Jillian, if you see this and I'm presenting your side incorrectly lmk/correct me, its been a long day with many discussions and they're all starting to blur.)

Rebecca,

It appears to me that the likely main (not the only) reason that Cupids is against the ruling is that they are an "Outcall" only service. Accordingly, this ruling will likely benefit their competitors more.

They may have additional reasons but I believe economics always prevail.

 

[Esco!]

They have 30 days to appeal. And the government has been given 1 year to rewrite the law books

Does this mean that a John can still get charged for visiting an incall location until the government rewrites criminal code sections or the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the Ontario Court of Appeal Decision?

It appears based on my review of another site that many Johns were recently charged for visiting incall locations...

Very, very unlikely that cops would still waste manpower on rounding up Johns after this ruling. Even if you did get arrested, my guess is the judge throws out your case before it even comes to trial

 

[buccaneerm]

What does this mean for us? Will there be more girls working now that the rules are different?

 

[L._s.]

Very, very unlikely that cops would still waste manpower on rounding up Johns after this ruling. Even if you did get arrested, my guess is the judge throws out your case before it even comes to trial

Agreed - but it is not the likelyhood of getting convicted - supposedly they release your name in the public without a trial or laying charges. This would not be good for family / career.

 

[L._s.]

They have 30 days to appeal. And the government has been given 1 year to rewrite the law books:

Does this mean that a John can still get charged for visiting an incall location until the government rewrites criminal code sections or the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the Ontario Court of Appeal Decision?

It appears based on my review of another site that many Johns were recently charged for visiting incall locations...

I have received pms regarding the above - the site is **** - THread - "Warning" in Incall Section - See 1st post and posts on last two pages.

 

[a 1 player]

We need to help people who cannot help themselves.

Who is we?
Why do you have to help them?
By what standard can they not help themselves?
Who is the moral recipient of the help, you are them?
If they do not want your help, how do you intend to do it, by force? There are only two means of persuasion, by reason or by force. It appears that reason is not working too well for you, do you intend to use a gun next? If you 'must' help, and the reason method is not working, one can only assume you eventually will take it to the 'force' level.
By using 'force' to help someone who does not want help, you have violated every moral code.

It is obvious you have no idea of what morals are, what a virtue is, and how it pertains objectively to man and his life. Of course I do not expect an answer to these questions, that would require rational thought, something you have failed to show so far. You sir are an intellectual slug, incapable of playing mentally with the 'big boys'. Now please have Ida make you some cookies and tuck you into bed, unless you have something objective to say.

 

[Esco!]

I have received pms regarding the above - the site is **** - THread - "Warning" in Incall Section - See 1st post and posts on last two pages

Wut???!!:search:

 

[Analme]

I have received pms regarding the above - the site is **** - THread - "Warning" in Incall Section - See 1st post and posts on last two pages.

THERE was no mention of charges laid only questioning outside.

 

[Esco!]

I think Little Stick is a Little paranoid

 

[L._s.]

I think Little Stick is a Little paranoid

Perhaps - Just trying to get as much information / points of view that I can - to decide a course of action to minimize the risks of this hobby.

 

[kevin]

It means in-calls will be legal!