[SWAF-Potluck] [FIRST] Government of Canada Launches On-Line Consultations to Seek Views on Criminal Code Prostitution-Related Offences

Wed Feb 19 11:11:32 PST 2014

Hello all, maybe everyone knows this, but in case they don't: Examples of what people are submitting are great, but the most convincing responses are those that don't borrow from what's already been said. Please speak in your own words as it's the best way to ensure your comments are heard. 

Esther 

On 2014-02-19, at 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
> 
> 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>
>>> Reply-To:	FIRST <first at cybersolidaires.org>
>>> To:	FIRST <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>
>>> 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 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
>>> 
>>> Statement by the Minister of Justice Regarding the Supreme Court of Canada Ruling in Attorney General of Canada V. Bedford et al.
>>> 
>>> Follow Department of Justice Canada on Twitter (@JusticeCanadaEn), join us on Facebook or visit our YouTube channel.
>>> 
>>> 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 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/swaf-potluck/attachments/20140219/0e0d5de5/attachment-0001.html>