A few years back, members of our local kink club got together and spoofed Rhianna's S&M...here are the results. And who said kinksters have to be all serious? I'm thinking we need to do another video...
For shits and giggles
The power of a veil
When will it end? The constant negativity when it comes to hating a group? The fear of losing jobs to 'them'. To cries of send them back where they belong? And in the same breath, proudly saying we are a free and 'open' country. I call bullshit.
The reason I call bullshit is due to the recent backlash that Muslim women have been receiving over their choice to wear a Niqab. For those not in the loop, a Niqabi is a veil or cloth that covers the head and face of some Muslim women in public and around certain adult males. Each faction of the Muslim religion have of course certain rules that the women follow, but if memory serves me correctly, the Niqab has been around for centuries in various cultures (not just Muslim), had gone by the wayside for a period of time, and I wish I had kept a link to the article, but memory says in the 50s the women began to choose to wear the headscarves and Niqab again as their own choice, so it became widespread.
Recently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that it is 'offensive' to cover one's face while taking the oath of Canadian citizenship, when a Muslim woman refused to take her Niqab off during her ceremony. It was argued that would-be citizens actually had to recite the oath and that people had to see their mouths flapping out the words. It has caused so much controversy that a ban is now being talked about to remove the Niqab from any ceremony to reflect Canadian values of openness, transparency and gender equality at the moment they join Canada. They want a ban on all veils for ceremonies....um...does that mean wedding veils must go or are they singling out one specific religious group as a means of hatred. Is there something wrong with that ideology? Anyone remember the bruhaha over the Sikh's turban in the RCMP?
Of course, the arguments are 'how can you prove who you are if we can't see you', 'how can we tell whether you took the oath if we can't see your mouth moving' and so on over the wearing of the veil during an oath ceremony. What most tended to ignore was that government officials have to have numerous steps in the process of prospective citizens to prove their identity, one of which is the removal of face coverings in private (in front of an official) before the oath. Then they are required to provide their signature on the certificate after the oath. So, given the tests they take, the visual verification, and signature on the certificate, a Muslim woman CAN be verified without taking her veil off in front of those that go against her religious beliefs. The arguments over having someone else in place become moot if the woman has an official with her at all times. And as far as mouths moving, do we kick out hearing impaired people who cannot speak verbally? How many of us mumble the words to the Canadian anthem (do you even remember ALL the words), or just stand around looking bored or checking our phones while the anthem is playing....like really, not very Canadian eh.
Yet, the uproar from Harper's flock is that of fear mongering, and this decade seems to target Muslims. Muslim women in particular. We would have terrorists being sworn in as Canadian citizens if the veil isn't removed in front of strange men. Said strange men that these women have chosen to veil themselves against to avoid being assaulted. But the Niqab is oppressive to women, they say. Is it really?
Perhaps actually talking to a Muslim woman might enlighten the Harperites on why they wear it. I'm certainly not big on any organized religious group, but I did take the time to read up on it and enlighten myself. A good conversation piece is linked here http://www.muhajabah.com/faceveil.htm
I wonder if Harper and the haters stopped to realize the oppression that woman have faced all their lives who have never worn a Niqab. Or aren't Muslim. By teaching Canadian girls in schools/community to not wear short skirts or low tops, or tight jeans, or too much makeup....or you're asking to be raped...is oppressive. So we enforce 'dress codes' to 'protect' them from harm. Stranger danger. How many things can you list out on how to prevent rape...all oppressive to women. Yet Harper hasn't done a damn thing to prevent this slut shaming, and law enforcement agencies are slow in changing their approach to women as well and will ask what were you wearing after an assault.
If the Harper Government wanted to do anything to prevent the oppression of women it would look at other religious groups, such as Roman Catholic nuns and their corporal punishment that sometimes went to extremes. Anyone remember the Ideal Maternity Home that was operated by an unordained Seventh-day Adventist minister and his wife in Chester back in the '30s? Or at least read/heard of the book, The Butterbox Babies? What about orphanages run by nuns, or schools. How many children were abused by both nuns and priests, yet they are revered because of their religious backgrounds and 'faith'. Abuse apparently equals faith. Yet the nun's veil is revered and loved, the Muslim Naqib is scorned and oppressive. Nuns come and go without question, and some of us even bow our heads in respect to them. Muslim women are spat on here and told to 'go home' in anger.
Besides Harper's obvious smoke screening of the real problems that Canada is facing because of his government, perhaps, just perhaps, the nun's habit brings back memories of too many spankings that Harper received as a child and won't say anything wrong about the nun's habit. That and he was brought up entitled to oogle at every woman he sees and wants to prevent Muslim women from disallowing him his 'white privilege' and the Niqab is removed so he can cat call these women any time he chooses.
I haven't blogged in many months, and haven't had time for any pro-doming sessions since life got in the way. I quit the Board for The Society of Bastet, the local kink club here in Halifax, in May of this year for mostly personal reasons (aka too much bullshit that I just snapped), and moved into a gorgeous home that I'm spending time fixing up the way I want.
Anways, back to one of the main reasons why I withdrew from the pro-domming. It seems that I've become a bit of an arm-chair activist on Twitter since Bill C36, otherwise known as the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, was introduced in June of 2014.
This Bill was slammed through Parliament and became law effective December 6, on the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre. Their deadline was December 20, when the Supreme Court would have decriminalized most of the adult prostitution-related activities that Terri-Jean Bedford et al brought to the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
I will make it very, very clear, that I do NOT offer any sexual services when I offered Pro-Domming sessions. There is never penetration of my body in any way, shape or form and I do not fall under the very vague terms of a 'prostitute' (not that sexual service is clearly defined in Canadian law and open to interpretation). However, I worked independently, created my own ads and placed them where I chose with companies that caters to my niche work, as well as maintained my own website and worked my own hours. There was no coercion, force, or intimidation for getting into my line of work, so I certainly would not be classed as a victim or trafficked. I had the time to interview my clients, and was never at any risk of harm by them in any way. And I loved what I did.
There are certain wordings in the Bill however that raised concern for me, so I chose to step back from pro-domming. I'm NOT removing my website or Twitter account, since I did put a lot of work into both, however, both forums will continue on and will be used as for educational/activist purposes for this point forward until this Law has been revoked. And leaving aspects of any law open to interpretation is a dangerous game to play as everyone will have a difference in opinion. Laws should be consistent and clear, and when they aren’t, people get pissed off and lose faith in those that are placed in position of trust and power.
Besides, poking at the stupidity of the Government has become a new fetish for me. And since they aren't paying me....I have the freedom to express my views and opinions on them.
I don't pretend to know all the key terms in the debate over sex work, TERF, SWERF, etc., I am always looking them up to keep them straight in my head, but what I have been seeing (on Twitter as well as on other media sources) is that there are two distinct issues with this bill that people seem to be confused over in this Bill/Law.
One is trafficking, while the other is sex work.
According to the Wikipedia dictionary, Human Trafficking:
Human trafficking is the trade in humans, most commonly for the purpose of sexual slavery, forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others; or for the extraction of organs or tissues, including surrogacy and ova removal; or for providing a spouse in the context of forced marriage.
Human trafficking can occur within a country or trans-nationally. Human trafficking is a crime against the person because of the violation of the victim's rights of movement through coercion and because of their commercial exploitation. Human trafficking is the trade in people, and does not necessarily involve the movement of the person from one place to another.
Human trafficking represents an estimated $31.6 billion of international trade per annum in 2010. Human trafficking is thought to be one of the fastest-growing activities of trans-national criminal organizations.
The Wiki definition of Sex Work:
A sex worker is a person who works in the sex industry. The term is used in reference to all those in all areas of the sex industry including those who provide direct sexual services as well as the staff of such industries. Some sex workers are paid to engage in sexually explicit behavior which involve varying degrees of physical contact with clients (prostitutes, escorts, some but not all professional dominants); pornography models and actors engage in sexually explicit behavior which are filmed or photographed. Phone sex operators have sexually-oriented conversations with clients, and do auditive sexual roleplay. Other sex workers are paid to engage in live sexual performance, such as web cam sex and performers in live sex shows. Some sex workers perform erotic dances and other acts for an audience (striptease, Go-Go dancing, lap dancing, Neo-burlesque, and peep shows). Sexual surrogates often engage in sexual activity as part of therapy with their clients.
Thus, although the term sex worker is sometimes viewed as a synonym or euphemism for prostitute, it is more general. Some people use the term to avoid invoking the stigma associated with the word prostitute.
Now a prostitute/prostitution is defined as:
Prostitution is the business or practice of engaging in sexual relations in exchange for payment or some other benefit. Prostitution is sometimes described as commercial sex.
A person who works in this field is called a prostitute, and is a kind of sex worker. Prostitution is one of the branches of the sex industry. The legal status of prostitution varies from country to country (sometimes from region to region within a given country), from being permissible but unregulated, to an enforced or unenforced crime or to a regulated profession. Prostitution is sometimes also referred to as "the world's oldest profession". Estimates place the annual revenue generated by prostitution worldwide to be over $100 billion.
Prostitution occurs in a variety of forms. Brothels are establishments specifically dedicated to prostitution. In escort prostitution, the act may take place at the client's residence or hotel room (referred to as out-call), or at the escort's residence or a hotel room rented for the occasion by the escort (in-call). Another form is street prostitution. Although the majority of prostitutes are female with male clients, there are also gay male prostitutes, lesbian prostitutes, and heterosexual male prostitutes. Sex tourism refers to traveling to engage in sexual relations with prostitutes. Some rich clients may pay for long-term contracts that may last for years. (Wiki does not mention trans workers here oddly enough.)
So, now that all those definitions are covered, let's look at this new law as well as how it still is unconstitutional and downright stupid. Lack of planning certainly doesn't play well with me, and this certainly shows it.
I do not support human trafficking in any way shape or form. Forcing anyone into sex work goes against my moral fibre and all that I've been taught about CONSENT in the BDSM world. We already have laws in place that govern that, and you can read it here: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ntnl-ctn-pln-cmbt/index-eng.aspx#toc-01.3
So, excluding any and all aspects of human trafficking that are already in place, Bill C36's objective was "to reduce the demand for prostitution with a view to discouraging entry into it, deterring participation in it and ultimately abolishing it the greatest extent possible".
I have one thought ...we are a society based on demand: the latest technology, vehicle, item of clothing, hair style, and even sexual desire.
According to the 2001 Forbes data the annual income distribution is like this:
Adult Video $500 million to $1.8 billion
Internet $1 billion
Magazines $1 billion
Pay-per-view $128 million
Cellphones $30 million
So there is an obvious 'demand' for porn, aka visual sexual stimulation. And there is the 'demand' for sex. I doubt that many would disagree if I state that many men get married in the hopes/understanding of continued sexual contact with their partner, instead of the constant 'chase' of dating. It can be draining to find sexual partners to fill that need, want and desire. When a Government takes away a demand/need, people will revolt and find alternative methods to meet THEIR demands, thus, why the internet has exploded with sexual materials.
So, taking the demand away from the people will be an exercise (read financial waste) in futility. Why?
From what I have seen, the Government's research was based on feminist groups that dealt with violence with women in general, they ignored the sex workers.
Marriages and common law relationships have and will continue to be rife with violence against women, as well as men. Yet, the Government does not make marriages illegal. Targeting sex workers and their clients will do nothing to reduce violence against women. Instead of spending money to 'end prostitution', perhaps the Government could better utilize the $20mil they set aside for their 'white knightery' and put those funds towards educating it's people on how to communicate better between the sexes, how to avoid/prevent violent behaviour, better programs to improve on mental health, teaching it's people how to consent properly in a sexual manner to end violence against women in general since they are all keen on keeping 'weak poor women' as victims and men as 'Neanderthals who rape'.
For me, 'targeting' women as victims in the sex industry yet providing money to 'groups' to get women out of their profession without providing adequate financial support directly to the workers is wrong. We have employment insurance when we, as paid (legitimate) workers, get laid off. While many of the sex workers can now file tax returns and claim much of their 'work', I have yet to hear of any that can claim EI because the Government has decided to 'lay them off'.
Forcing sex workers and clients into 'programs' that religious based operations are creating specifically for the purpose of 'converting' sex workers goes against THEIR right to religious freedoms, or did you even think about that?? What purpose do these programs serve exactly? And who is paying for the transportation costs to get them (and their clients) to? The sex workers and clients? You already terminated their employment, so good luck collecting on those costs. Divert funds from health care might be an option to cover it though.
Did anyone think that rent needs to get paid, kids and the sex workers need to eat? I've seen numerous groups talk about the safety of sex workers going back to the streets and getting hurt by clients, but what about the financial repercussions to the sex worker and their families? Sorry, but when one can charge $100/session and have multiple sessions a day is used to that kind of lifestyle, taking it all away from them is going to hurt financially. Not only are sex workers going to be on the streets plying their wares at great risk to their safety, they WILL be ON the streets because they have no income any longer. McDonalds is certainly not an option to replace that income flow. So this bill has certainly influenced the socio-economic factors, such as poverty, and probably death since Winter is here in Canada and people do freeze to death when shelters are full and women have no place to go but to sleep on the streets, when they get kicked out of their place for non-payment of rent.
What some of these members of parliament don't realize is that many women go into sex work because they WANT to. They enjoy sex, control how they decide to do their work, whether it is direct sexual contact or web camming, or selling sexual clips online, as well as how many hours they want to put into it. They need to advertise for the purchase of their work. No matter what mundane or ludarious excuse the Government comes up with, advertising is the way that all business operates, and sex workers are no different. Bill C36 directly interferes with that, discriminates against sex workers from advertising. In any other form of business, that means bankruptcy and the death of a business. There is no way around it in this day and technological age. Don't convolute the issue with discussions on sex trafficking which you have tried to pass off onto the general public as the same as sex work.
What exactly are you going to do to prevent the ads from being run? Sue newspapers? Shut down websites? Especially those in other countries that sex workers advertise in? That requires legal means, and international lawyers to deal with countries that don't support YOUR righteous laws. It also requires money to pay for the services of said lawyers to shut down the ads. Which comes out of whose pockets exactly? Yeah, I'm sure that you can move some of the money out of the military budget for that one. Our veterans certainly won't mind one more budget cut based on your moralistic high horse.
Legally, "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice". (from that Charter again..)
I think that right there is proof enough that the Government blew it by forcing sex workers to end their jobs based on their own morals, with no regard for personal safety by forcing sex workers on the streets, either by continuing to work in the industry, or complete removal from it effective immediately. Morals do not pay bills, nor do they keep a roof over someone's head. Justice has nothing to do with two people consenting to some sort of sexual release and money is involved. Giving it to them for free isn't an option either for many sex workers and pretty misogynistic to think sex work will disappear based on someone's out-dated patriarchy morals. Because forcing women out of work by any means possible isn't patriarchy at its finest.
Get rid of the Law you forced down our throats, as soon as possible, and allow sex workers to work in peace. Concentrate on sex traffickers, or perhaps peaceful crowd control of your law enforcement agencies. Because what is going on down in the States with race relations is going to ripple upwards to Canada in no time and cops will have much more problems on their than dealing with a hooker and a john.
You think I want to do what I do for free all day long? My equipment certainly is costly, and needs to be paid for somehow. Taking away what I enjoy doing only pisses me off, and that means I'll be a pain in the ass until this bullshit is over.
As with everything in life that I find ironic, one day after the new law comes into effect, Now Magazine has already stepped forward to say they will be ignoring the advertising ban. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/06/now-magazine-plans-to-defy-ad-ban_n_6280224.html?utm_hp_ref=tw They won't be the last I'm sure because a loss in revenue isn't something that any business is going to take too kindly too.
When did I become a victim?
When did I become a victim? An object of disgrace, disgust? A victim to be saved by some knight on Capital Hill?
When did it become normal to degrade me, put me down and then make me a criminal?
When the Canadian Government introduced Bill C36, that's when. Well, long before then, but now very much in the forefront of everyone's minds.
Prostitution, or sex work, had never been a criminal offense in Canada, The 'act' was legal. It was other things that lead up to the actual 'act of penetration' that was illegal, ie talking about price could lead to an arrest.
Can you imagine if a baker made all these wonderful cupcakes and could advertise them, but as soon as a customer asked 'how much', they would be arrested?
Fast forward to December 2013 when the Supreme Court of Canada kills off those laws that infringe on sex workers and their clients human rights. The Government had a year to come up with laws that were viable to the safety of sex workers and they did. Not.
With Bill C36, the government 'allows' sex workers to do the 'act', but they cannot advertise, nor discuss/vet their prospective clients (for their own safety) in any area where children might be present. They now will go after chauffeurs, bodyguards, etc and arrest them too in the guise of exploiting sex workers and profiting off them.
Now, I'm no genius, just have some university education, however..
- not being able to advertise my services
- not being able to discuss my services anywhere (cause there's always that slim chance a child will be present somewhere on the internet at the same time I am that could see my site, or hack my email for that matter)
- can't call a cab to get to my destination, or stop for gas, or hire someone to drive me to my client
-can't rent a hotel, motel, dungeon, the client's place or mine without risk of breaking the law
- my client being arrested for buying my services
I don't know of ANY business that can succeed with all these and there would be a complete breakdown in the society we have set up to...make money.
Sex worker organizations are upset and disheartened. I'm pissed off. Mackay says he's protecting these women by offering $20 million to help all the women to exit the sex trade. To protect them from pimps and abuse. To give them a better life in finding jobs. He ca't even define what sex is, so that's left me as a Pro-Domme completely confused, especially since I don't engage in penetrative sex like some sex workers do. I'm angry, frustrated, and not accepting this Bill.
Please tell me Mr Mackay, what job is out there that I can earn $300/hour or more? To work the hours that I chose to work? To turn down clients that I don't want to see for whatever reason? To be able to afford and hire a bodyguard or driver in case someone is a bit shady and I just want the client to be aware that he can't take advantage of me? To do what I've spent years learning, educating myself and others about, laughing and having some pretty damn fun times, AND getting paid for it?
$20 million is NOT going to provide that type of job for me. I WILL tell you that.
I will also tell you that I, and many others in the industry, will not stop doing what we actually enjoy. The money is great, the hours are great, and many of our clients are great too.
What Bedford wanted was for equal rights of sex workers as many other workers in Canada enjoy. A safe working environment, health benefits.
What we do not want is you handing us a pink slip and saying go work for Walmart. Minimum wage? Seriously? Can you not degrade us even further than you already did with your opening speech? I'm sure you will find ways.
What is is about the act of paying money for ANY sexual service that is so abhorrent to you? How you evade answering the simplest of questions when asked...what are we going to do now that you got rid of our clients and we no longer have a job?
Do you not think that because the demand for sex will simply go away? In your idealistic world perhaps this may be true, but not in mine. Or in others that think realistically. We are sexual beings. If you are so narrow minded to think that sex happens within the confines of marriage you are sadly mistaken. And putting your moralistic ideals onto others infringes on not only my rights, but on millions of others rights to have a good, healthy sexual life, no matter HOW we choose to do it.
So, let's get real here. You've pretty much shut down prostitution across Canada, making it illegal to be a sex worker and to be a john. What you have now created is:
- an environment where people will have to work a bit more in advertising on the low, cause newspapers and websites alike will be losing our business in placing ads with them. Lost sales to any business is going to impact not only a company's bottom line, but the economy when they start laying off people. Like Canada's unemployment really wants that hit?
- an environment where sex workers are at more risk of harm because we can't take the time to vet our potential clients anywhere, thus increasing the risk of assault, rape and murder. Sex workers are referring to Bill C36 as the Pickton model. You remember Pickton don't you? Or would you rather bury him and his victims in the backyard like the rest of us?
- While the johns, or male voters, who use our services may be fearful of coming out in support of sex workers and their rights to work because they will get arrested for using our services, they are still voters. They can show their support by not voting for your pathetic ass in the next election. And I'm calling you pathetic since you started the name calling by calling us down as victims.
- You said we are victims, and you want to protect us. Then get off your white horse, remove the damn armour and come into the 20th century (and actually speaking with us to know who we are would be nice too). We are not victims when we have a legitimate place to work. We are not victims when we have practices in place that keep us safe. We are not victims when we have proper health care benefits that we can pay for to keep us doing our jobs. And we are not victims when we do our jobs willingly. So get off your high horse, I doubt you have ever ridden one anyways. And shiny armour is a bitch to clean btw.
So, being a realist, and dealing with people on a sexual level for many years in not so conventional means of the constraints of marriage (noticed I said constrained) you think that by making prostitution illegal, that you are going to completely rid Canada of sex work. Gosh, you have such high expectations of complacency with your constituents don't you.
Your ignorance of this will get us killed. It will increase violence among women, both inside and outside of marriage. You'll have sexually frustrated people getting upset over the smallest of things and crimes/violence will certainly increase.
I could probably copy at least a dozen news reports here showing examples of sexual frustration and the aftermath, but I'm too lazy and MacKay wouldn't read them anyways.
A good sexual life does not create disharmony in oneself. And you are now going to take that away from all of us? The only thing I can think of for the reasons you totally blew away Bedford is simple. The ingrained religious practice of monogamous marriage that suddenly turns anyone 'honest'.
I read a lot about sex workers rights, but let's ask why exactly the selling/purchasing of sex is now going to be illegal.
In my warped, twisted mind, marriage does that, but over a longer period of time, with different ways of discussing the 'fees'. A guy buys a girl dinner, for sex later. A guy buys a girl a ring, to ensure she keeps having sex with him. A guy buys a girl a wedding ceremony to celebrate the fact that he doesn't have to do much to find sex, he'll have it within the confines of the house he paid for for the girl to continue to have sex with him. That's marriage. Oh, and not to mention that he breeds her to carry on and keep her home so he can have sex with her. That's the way to go isn't it. To be an honest man and make an honest woman out of the girl.
But what happens if a guy can't find a girl to marry? His job is so demanding he never settles down long enough to hunt for one. What happens to those that have disabilities and girls just don't find him attractive enough to even get to the first dinner? What happens to the guy that his wife no longer is interested in sex because she's so tired from herding the kids to school, soccer, ballet, going to PTA meetings, yoga class, cleaning the house and flopping into bed every night saying 'not tonight dear'. Menopause is aptly named, because it typically puts the pause if not power off button on some women's sex drives. So, the man has to be put on hold too?
I'm not blaming women here, honestly. But, these are only some of the many reasons I've come across as to why men see sex workers. But because of real life marriage situations, sex will often go on the back burner for many women. Unfortunately, they don't get consent for that off button from their husbands. Which, according to me...is unfair.
These men aren't seedy criminals. They aren't rapists either. But they can only take so much before out of loneliness or desperation, they see a sex worker, or even better when they can find someone who provides the sexual release for free (technically free but remember the buying of the dinner?) You read constantly about having a healthy sex life makes for a happy marriage. But, given religious undertones, it must be between the two that stood in front of the alter. We got all twisted around in that religious trap. When a couple gets bogged down in a busy life, the sex goes downhill, so one partner seeks out sex to get some sanity back-the relationship goes to hell because it is done in secret and divorce court here we come. Mistresses have been around for centuries, but do you think they did it for free?
For someone like me, people are kinky. They have different needs than the normal vanilla ones. Their submission or wanting a type of impact. It eases their minds. It empowers them. It gives them a sense of relief to impart control to someone else, if only for a few hours. And then it helps them to continue leading an often hectic life. They do not penetrate me in any way, but it can be a sexual release of their mind or their body, even a stress release. So I am a sex worker, although I'm sure that Mr Mackay's puritanical viewpoint would call me much worse than a victim.
I do hope that Mr Mackay has a healthy, happy sexual relationship with his wife. Because if not, and he seeks out someone outside of his marriage for relief, he's going to be breaking the very laws he put into place. Because when you leave laws open to interpretation...buying a girl a drink in the hopes that he can have a 'happy ending' is going to land his own ass in jail. At least that's MY interpretation of his Bill C36.
You want to call me a victim one more time and hand me a pink slip? I'll gladly beat your ass until you cry Red Mr. MacKay. And I'll even do it for free. Maybe even ignore your Red.... I'm not going to stand by while you shove this Bill down our throats and harm so many more people. You, in essence, have become the worst pimp out there.
I chose to do what I do. I do my own adverting here I want. I choose whether to session with a client or not. I do not let anyone take advantage of me, nor do I allow anyone to make me do what I do not want to do. I enjoy my work. Enjoy the people I interact with. And I enjoy the money.
Do I look like a fucking victim that needs help? I think not.
I am considered a sex worker, even though I don't have any penetration of my body by my clients. I felt it worthy to voice my opinion to the Federal Government to get rid of the stigma against sex workers as well as to allow them to operate like any other normal business does. If it's something you love, it shouldn't be a crime if two people are consenting to it, whether it is purchasing a therapeutic massage, a hand made garment, a hair cut or sexual release. My answers were short (only 500 word limit) so I couldn't elaborate more, but I'm sure you get the gist of it. Food for thought to help change the way we view sex workers, not only in our country, but worldwide. (I twitched at some of the spelling mistakes...but left the page as is for the consultation)
The Government of Canada is seeking the public's input on the criminal law's response to adult prostitution (i.e. the sale and purchase of sexual services from persons 18 years of age or older). This online consultation is open from February 17 to March 17, 2014.
On December 20, 2013, in the case of Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada 1, the Supreme Court of Canada found three Criminal Code prostitution offences to be unconstitutional and of no force or effect. This decision gives Parliment one year to respond before the judgment takes effect. Input received through this consultation will inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision.
You will find some specific questions on this issue at the end of this document. To put them in context, here is a brief overview of the current criminal laws addressing prostitution, the Bedford decision, and existing international approaches to prostitution.
Prostitution is a complex and controversial social issue. Although there is a lack of consensus on how the criminal justice system should treat adult prostitution, it is generally acknowledged that prostitution poses risks to those involved and to the communities in which it is practised.
Current Criminal Laws Governing Prostitution
Adult prostitution is not illegal in Canada; however, the Criminal Code prohibits three types of prostitution-related activities:
The Supreme Court of Canada's Bedford DecisionThe Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada found threeCriminal Code prostitution provisions unconstitutional:
The Supreme Court's decision does not take effect for one year. If there is no legislative response, the result of this decision would be decriminalization of most adult prostitution-related activities:
Please make any comments you have in the text boxes below. Keep your comments brief and concise, as there is a 500-word limit per text box. You can also submit your comments directly to
1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
Comment: No, it should be seen as a service. Period. There are many individuals that cannot get out to date and are considered 'date worthy' that could use the services, ie invalids, quadriplegics, etc., that could still lead healthy sexual lives with the assistance of sex workers. Human beings are in the survival of the 'fittest' mode and oftentimes, there are those that are at the bottom of the sexual totem pole or work too long hours to have the time to date and meet a sexual partner. Sex workers certainly have the time to accommodate these people as well so they maintain a healthy (even if over worked) lifestyle, and can use it as a stress reducer. The media has portrayed 'Johns' as degenerates of society, but in reality...normal every day men and women use the services of sex workers for various reasons: workaholics, travellers, not wanting to make a commitment to a heavily promoted monogomous lifestyle, people who suffer from Agoraphobia, who are extremely shy, as well as a vast number of other reason. They are normal sexual beings and these services are geared towards them more so than the cheating husband.
2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
Comment: No. So long as the adult is consenting to selling sexual services because they WANT to (not being coerced or forced by a pimp or other), it is their body to do with as they wish. Not some government officials, strangers or neighbours. North America has a stupid religious phobia against having sex outside of procreation, but sex is pleasurable and should be promoted as such in a positive manner. We are no longer just Catholics for this to stand up anywhere morally. The "Church" no longer is a factor in many citizens' lives to validate prostitution as immoral (won't start on that debate!). Forcing someone into the sex trade should be illegal however as it takes away an adult's consent...and the 'pimp' should be charged appropriately. Sex should always be consensual, so there would be no need of pimps. Treat it as a business, with security and taxed as any other service provider would be taxed, and the criminal element will disappear, ie brothels have been around for a very long time with great success outside of the police shutting them down for someone else's morales.
3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain.
Comment: Certainly not on the streets as it is now. Set up in the business district, obviously, and over time it will change to just another day at work. Have the sex workers enforce safe sex and get tested regularly (every week) for STIs and ensure they are treated properly and immediately. Have security since there will no doubt be an uproar initially because of the bible-thumpers objecting to us going to Hell, a receptionist/office manager for bookings, etc. Rules on behaviour for 'clients' should be followed as well. When a sex worker does manage to get an STI, they are taken out of pool immediately to prevent risk of transmission. Insurance premiums (probably initially obnoxiously high) can be implemented to put them on short-term disability in this instance for most treatments.
4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
Comment: No. Should it be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the sweat off a MacDonalds employee making burgers, or a construction worker building a house? Or how about benefitting from a professional hockey player or swimmer? Or how about a model or movie star? Why should prostitution be ANY exception or any different? Too many years stuck with someone saying it's wrong is the only answer to this, and not providing valid enough reasons except fear from those being coerced. There ARE people who actually enjoy having sex for the sake of having sex! Gasp!
5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to theBedford decision?
Comment: As far as the Bedford decision, I happen to follow Terri-Jean Bedford and commend her and the other ladies for sticking up and supporting an industry that has been around for as long as know records were in place. I am in the BDSM community, and consent is paramount to everything we do, whether sexual or non-sexual. We are willing adults, and frankly this idea that prostitutes/sex workers are the scourge of the Earth has gone on unchallenged for so long, people are tired of the lame excuses and slut shaming of women. Religious zealots have degraded women for far too long, and it is only a matter of time before sex work is considered a normal job, without the stigma attached.
6. Are you are writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role:
Comment: No. I am writing as an individual
If you wish to send in your own comments, follow this link:
It's about time we stop this nonsense, get rid of the criminal element of prostitution by making it legal overall, and allow those that want to enjoy getting paid for sexual services to do so in the same manner as any other person using their body (models, sports personnel, and so on) to make money. Most of all to get rid of the stigma attached to sex work.
Insight, random thoughts, and the workings of my mind, along with educational food-for-thought.