[SWAF-Potluck] Fwd: Re: [FIRST] Government of Canada Launches On-Line Consultations to Seek Views on Criminal Code Prostitution-Related Offences
Miss Fiona Lux
lustnsuch at gmail.com
Wed Feb 19 10:33:43 PST 2014
Great answers Ki! I answered similarly but your wording is much more
eloquent :)
On Feb 19, 2014 10:30 AM, "Ki Bournes" <ki at massagebyki.com> wrote:
> I agree that submitting once is the best idea. Measure your words, keep
> it civil and rational and press send. My responses below to the questions.
> Here is the link again:
> http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/index.html
>
> Consultation Questions
>
> * 1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be
> a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.*
>
> Comment: Purchasing sex from an adult should not be a criminal offence.
> This is a consensual arrangement between consenting adults. The only
> exception should be if there is clear exploitation taking place eg. the
> seller of sexual services is under threat of violence from a pimp if they
> don't sell sexual services.
>
> * 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 except in cases of clear exploitation. See my answer to
> question 1.
>
> *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: This is a complex issue. As with any industry there needs to be
> regulations in place to protect workers, clients and the community. These
> regulations need to be developed with all stake holders especially sex
> workers and the organizations that represent them. Sex workers are experts
> on their work. We need also to take a close look at other countries that
> have decriminalized and regulated sex work to learn from their experience.
> During consultation we should be careful to limit the input of
> organizations that oppose sex work on purely moral grounds.
>
> *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: First of all sex workers prefer the term sex work not
> prostitution. There will always be people who have management and
> organization skills who will set up businesses. And there will always be
> people who just want to be employees. Sex work is no different. We should
> allow people to run sex work businesses and employ others. We should have
> regulations in place to promote workplace fairness and discourage any
> exploitation.
>
> *5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the
> Government's response to the Bedford decision?*
>
> Comment: The Government in my opinion seems intent on criminalizing the
> purchase of sexual services. This would be a direct contravention to the
> Bedford decision and would most likely be thrown out by the Supreme Court
> after a challenge worked it's way through the system over the course of
> many years. In the meantime more sex workers are going to die. We will also
> miss the opportunity for having a meaningful discussion on how we might
> best regulate the sex work industry.
>
> *6. Are you are writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please
> identify the organization and your title or role:*
>
> Comment: I am writing on behalf of myself however I do belong to a group
> of 50 sex workers who are mostly centred in Vancouver. We are high
> functioning members of society. Our group hosts potlucks on a regular basis
> and supports each other in our work and socially. We discuss the politics
> of sex work in detail. I'm the main organizer. Everyone in our group wants
> criminalization of our work to end. We want to have meaningful input in
> creating an industry where we can all be safe.
> _______________
> Massage By Ki
> Somatic Sex Education for Healing, Pleasure and Power
> www.massagebyki.com 604-618-3381
> Join us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/MassageByKi>
>
> On 2/19/2014, 7:25 AM, Kerry Porth wrote:
>
> They likely track responses based on ip addresses but it's hard to know. I
> think we should err on the side of caution and just submit once.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 9:14 PM, Mary Miriam Magdalena <
> ohmymagdalena at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Done, once.
>
> Do you think they keep track of how many submissions come from the same
> computer or browser, internet address or whatever?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Ki Bournes <ki at massagebyki.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>> Please read the comments below and do the survey. At least once ;) Our
>> chance to have at least some input.
>> Ki
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [FIRST] Government of
>> Canada Launches On-Line Consultations to Seek Views on Criminal Code
>> Prostitution-Related Offences Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:40:27 -0800 From:
>> Trina Rose <trina.rosecat at gmail.com> <trina.rosecat at gmail.com> Reply-To:
>> FIRST <first at cybersolidaires.org> <first at cybersolidaires.org> To: FIRST
>> <first at cybersolidaires.org> <first at cybersolidaires.org>
>>
>> I answered twice already too.
>>
>> Trina Ricketts
>> www.trinarose.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:28 PM, susan davis <susan.1968 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> people are posting it all over canada online and people are jumping on
>>> board.
>>>
>>> for the record...i took the survey twice....
>>>
>>> i am thinking the other side will use this to their advantage and over
>>> post in favor of their goals....should we do the same? should we
>>> continually answer until the deadline?
>>>
>>> susie
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> From: emls at shaw.ca
>>> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:32:49 -0800
>>> To: first at cybersolidaires.org
>>> Subject: Re: [FIRST] Government of Canada Launches On-Line Consultations
>>> to Seek Views on Criminal Code Prostitution-Related Offences
>>>
>>>
>>> Timing interesting: they for sure knew folks were meeting last week
>>> and they for sure know we're not ready. If we had any doubts, we now know
>>> they are going to push as hard and fast as they can.
>>>
>>> Esther
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* first-bounces at cybersolidaires.org [mailto:first-
>>> bounces at cybersolidaires.org] *On Behalf Of *Joyce Arthur
>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 17, 2014 10:45 AM
>>> *To:* 'FIRST'
>>> *Subject:* [FIRST] Government of Canada Launches On-Line Consultations
>>> to Seek Views on Criminal Code Prostitution-Related Offences
>>>
>>> I guess this is the opportunity for any of us to speak up, although I
>>> can't help feeling cynical about the government's intentions in terms of
>>> taking opposing views seriously. The 'Discussion' section is reasonably
>>> fact-based and objective, except for the last section outlining the 3
>>> regulatory options, which gives favouritism to the Nordic approach and
>>> assumes clients and third parties are exploitive. In the Questions
>>> section, there is no separate option for decrim, and the questions are
>>> likely biased in favour of eliciting pro-criminalization responses.
>>>
>>> Still, we should probably submit comments, as many of us as possible!
>>>
>>> Joyce
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/government-canada-launches-on-line-consultations-seek-views-on-criminal-code-prostitution-1879513.htm
>>>
>>> Department of Justice Canada
>>>
>>> <image001.jpg> <http://www.justice.gc.ca/>
>>>
>>> February 17, 2014 11:32 ET
>>> Government of Canada Launches On-Line Consultations to Seek Views on
>>> Criminal Code Prostitution-Related Offences
>>>
>>> *Public Input to Inform Government's Response to Supreme Court of
>>> Canada's decision on prostitution*
>>>
>>> *OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwired - Feb. 17, 2014) -* Department of
>>> Justice Canada
>>>
>>> The Government of Canada today launched a public on-line consultation
>>> with Canadians to seek their views and input, to help inform the
>>> Government's response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in *Bedford
>>> v. Attorney General of Canada*. On December 20, 2013, the Supreme Court
>>> of Canada found three *Criminal Code* prostitution-related offences
>>> unconstitutional.
>>>
>>> *Quick Facts*
>>>
>>> - The Supreme Court of Canada suspended the effects of its decision
>>> for one year, to allow for the government to respond to the
>>> unconstitutionality of certain offences. Those offences relate to:
>>> - Indoor prostitution (e.g., in a house/apartment, massage
>>> parlour or strip club);
>>> - Providing services to prostitutes (e.g., as a bodyguard or
>>> driver); and,
>>> - Communicating for the purposes of purchasing or selling sexual
>>> services in public places, e.g., in the street.
>>>
>>> - Canadians can access a web page<http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/index.html#2014_02_17>
>>> on the Department of Justice's website to provide their input.
>>>
>>> - The on-line consultation will be live from February 17 to March 17,
>>> 2014 and all Canadians are invited to provide their thoughts and views on
>>> the issue.
>>>
>>> *Quotes*
>>>
>>> "Our Government is concerned about the significant harms that flow from
>>> prostitution to communities, those engaged in prostitution and other
>>> vulnerable persons. Doing nothing is not an option - we are therefore
>>> asking Canadians right across the country, to provide their input, through
>>> an on-line consultation, to ensure a legislative response to prostitution
>>> that reflects our country's values. We will be taking action to maintain
>>> the safety of our streets and communities, for the benefit of all
>>> Canadians."
>>>
>>> *Justice Minister Peter MacKay*
>>>
>>> *Associated Links*
>>>
>>> Public Consultation on Prostitution-Related Offences in Canada<http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/index.html#2014_02_17>
>>>
>>> Statement by the Minister of Justice Regarding the Supreme Court of
>>> Canada Ruling in Attorney General of Canada V. Bedford et al.<http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2013/doc_33020.html>
>>>
>>> Follow Department of Justice Canada on Twitter (@JusticeCanadaEn<https://twitter.com/JusticeCanadaEn>),
>>> join us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/JusticeCanadaEn> or visit
>>> our YouTube channel <http://www.youtube.com/JusticeCanadaEn>.
>>> Contact Information
>>>
>>> - Paloma Aguilar
>>> Press Secretary
>>> Office of the Minister of Justice
>>> 613-992-4621
>>>
>>> Media Relations Office
>>> Department of Justice
>>> 613-957-4207
>>>
>>>
>>> <Untitled attachment 00149.txt>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SWAF-Potluck mailing list
>> SWAF-Potluck at lists.resist.ca
>> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swaf-potluck
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> SWAF-Potluck mailing list
> SWAF-Potluck at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swaf-potluck
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SWAF-Potluck mailing listSWAF-Potluck at lists.resist.cahttps://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swaf-potluck
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SWAF-Potluck mailing list
> SWAF-Potluck at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swaf-potluck
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/swaf-potluck/attachments/20140219/dedf7e68/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the SWAF-Potluck
mailing list