Fixing What Harper Broke: A to-do list

[dre]

Hear hear. Well stated comments.

There is work to do though... I don't like the LPC position on C51 for example. That's a bill that needs to be completely repealed. They have said they will "change it". These kinds of misguided security bills give government a lot of new power though and that's tempting for any administration. I think the true test for Trudeau is whether or not he buy into the objectively false "you can have liberty or security" argument. I'm worried that he will.

[dre]

BUT WE HAVE OUR COUNTRY BACK NOW! OH THANK GOD! THANK GOD! THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, FREE AT LAST!!

Don't accidentally pedal your bright orange tricycle off a cliff backwards!

[Argus]

Hear hear. Well stated comments.

BUT WE HAVE OUR COUNTRY BACK!

[poochy]

BUT WE HAVE OUR COUNTRY BACK!

Careful now, you're going to get your comments deleted and the thread locked for pointing out ridiculous things like this.

[nerve]

Comments on your points.

• Repeal Bill C-51. As a compromise, the Liberals could amend part 2 (No Fly lists) while repealing Parts 1 (info sharing), 3 (terrorism in general propaganda), 4 (the most dangerous, unleashing CSIS as covert disruptors) and 5 (allowing evidence obtained by torture).

To be honest, a lot of the security measures were to create common capacities across allies in the 5I's but it combined all those powers where certain other countries had some but not all of them. No fly lists are clearly unconstitutional - if they are not mediated by actual court orders, since Canadians have the constitutional right to enter, remain or leave Canada. People that are on "no fly lists" should have lawfully already had their passport restricted. If there is a legitimate national security threat i.e. breaking of law such as treason or an intent to commit a terrorist act, Police in Canada should have already arrested or put an APB out on that person. Lists for any other purpose are solely politically motivated and not lawful. It is a broad form of arbitrary detainment, which is not lawful on the basis of mere suspicion.

All the information sharing is tremendously problematic because government agencies don't keep accurate records. Sharing errored information is not going to help things. There must certainly not be sharing of opinion or "secret" unchecked information sharing. Facts which are not validated in a publicly open process in a court of record, where all sides can be shared is tremendously flawed. Since court records not under publication ban are publically available, then why not limit information sharing to the public record, where there isn't the presumption of privacy of communication. Introducing wiretaping without a warrant and sharing that info is ill. To be honest there are a whole bunch of other crimes like murder that are a way bigger threat to Canada than terrorism, terrorism has been a fear mongering tactic for the past 10 years, and these essentially extrajudicial attacks in foreign states have been war crimes, but the paradigm shift is that if the other side is the bad guys, human rights and the laws of war don't apply anymore, this is a tremendous problem. People need to be unbrainwashed, and recognize that movements in foreign states, are those states internal problems, and until they request assitance, they should stay that way, Canada had no right whatsoever to bomb Syria without permission of the Syrian government by international law. Using undercover etc.. is problematic if they facilitate, plan and coordinate those groups it is essentially entrapment, and those types of activities, of coaxing people to commit acts or in any way supporting those acts is totally totally wrong, and unjustified. The fact we have police agencies supplying bomb making materials to could be terrorists to "test them" is just wrong, and outright entrapment. The whole concept of vice operations, or testing people by creating a context of a crime occuring, is effectively engineering those acts that would not arise naturally, and it is criminal, and no we should not be facilitating police to develop criminals to the point they can be arrested, it is wrong. This is true of csis to, we should not have agents getting coconspirators to commit crimes, it is tainting the whole process through otherwise criminal acts by the so called government. I am sure that in terms of best evidence, evidence obtained due to duress is totally not legally admissible, as any act commited in a state of duress is not a qualified legal action. People will say anything to get out of torture as the immediate threat is prioritized over that of lying. Lying to torturers is not an act of bad faith. Recanting on information that was supplied during duress should be a fully qualified act.

• Repeal C-44 – allowing CSIS agents to operate over-seas.

I don't agree with this per se, but we should insure that government actions over seas for anyone should be done lawfully based on the laws of that jurisdiction and on prior agreement with that state - while at the same time balance the needs of national security, in the case of a state of war existing, and CSIS agents being sworn in as members of the military involved in a lawful overseas operation, or on attache basis with that local law enforcement. There is no reason to deny foreign expertise to states that may need it, but we should insure that Canada does not engage in criminal acts as the KGB or CIA has done in the past regarding abductions, assasinations and other grossly questionable acts - Canada should not be engaged in violating international human rights laws as other intelligence agencies around the world.

• Repeal C-38 – with a section eliminating the Inspector General for CSIS.

This really doesn't matter, but we must insure that everyone in Canada is equal under the law, and everyone needs to uphold the charter, constitution, and international human rights laws. We should of course have mechanisms to insure people are operating within the law, and if they violate it that they are not protected by secret immunities such as has occured with Police in Canada, we need to insure that criminals and human rights violators whether in uniform or titled from the government are held accountable for heinous acts.

• Repeal C-3 (2007 legislation that introduced unconstitutional security certificates).

Certainly unconstititonal things have no force of law, if they violate the bill of rights by default so the law would have no force anyway even if it was on paper.

• Instead – build security law drawn from advice from the Arar and Air India Commissions of Inquiry.

I think we have a security law, it is called the criminal code, and it to needs to be modernized and simplified get rid of mountains of case law so that the average person actually knows the law. We need to better codify the criminal code, all these rights violations on targetted people that are suppose to be under blanket protection is totally unlawful.

2) Rebuilding our criminal law system:

• Reinstate the Law Reform Commission and Court Challenges programme.
• Repeal C-10 and other mandatory minimum provisions.
• Repeal C-2 (Insite).
• Repeal C-14 (NCR).
• Repeal C-25 (Truth in Sentencing Act).
• Repeal C-309 (Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act).

The entire justice system is problematic and just this stuff ain't going to fix it. We need to bring back innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we need to get rid of discharges and we need to get rid of conditional sentencing. Either people can be rehabilitated, and need it or they don't. People screw up, there are illegal cultures, and we need to both bring the criminal code in line with real life rather than just an elitist overlordship and we need to insure that real crimes are treated seriously while petty offences are removed completely from the criminal code. We need to stop social policing, and actually require crimes to have victims. We also need to remove monetary penalties and instead have restitution as the only monetary point in the justice system, the victims should be compensated, not the government for acts done to private persons. Amongst other things, like insuring courts of public record actually are free to appear in, and that those records are also free to the public, and anyone involve in those trials, that people have access to those courts without non public laws being placed on them eg. special courthouse rules, and that all law is made from the common english language (this is a comment on the English Law system, not the French Code), and that all laws are codified instead of secret and hidden. People should know the laws they are judge by.

3) Reverse trend to slippery citizenship:

• Return Canada’s embassies to aggressively act for Canadians abroad in trouble – including on death row.
• Repeal C-24 (only one citizenship exists – unless obtained by fraud, citizenship is citizenship).
• Repeal FATCA (found in omnibus C-31).
• Restore citizenship for Lost Canadians.

I don't think it is the place to say what embassies do, as the ambassadors are suppose to act as advisors to the states they are in, not as lobbiests for their home country.

People can have multiple citizenships, however, I don't think Canada should be in the business of ever removing citizenship. They should be in the business of trying people for serious criminal offences. If they commit fraud, it is fraud and shouldn't loose their citizenship they should be tried in court like any other fraudster. However if they passed the tests and have lived in Canada for the required time, who cares, there are plenty of Canadians who have been convicted of fraud too.

I think what we need to do is insure that Canadians can revoke their citizenship. The forced citizenship is the problem. People should not be forced to be a citizen of a state, and a renounciation should not require transfer of citizenship to a list that is recognized by Canada, it should be universal and unilateral, if a citizen renounces their citizenship it should be that simple, they should not be forced to ascribe to a list of friendly states. It should be a mutual contracted relationship not one of dominance of the other, Canada should not rule someone who does not seek to be ruled by them if outside of Canadian jurisdiction, and jurisidiction on the basis of citizenship should only exist by agreement to be that citizenship.

4) Immigration and refugee law:

• Repeal the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act from Fall 2011 that puts refugees arriving by boat in jail for a year (C-31).
• Return to principles of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act – create a predictable path to citizenship.
• Prioritize family reunification.
• Create a sponsor-friendly refugee support process. Restore health, housing, language and other supports to refugee claimants.
• Appoint board members to Immigration appeal board to deal with backlog.

It'd be way easier if citizenship was only gained by birth, and we had super permanent resisdents for those who were not born in Canada that want to live permanently in Canada. That naturalization stuff is what causes all the problems.

Clearly though Canada should recgonize the needs of refugees but naturalization need not be part of that. Naturalization is just a way of alienating Canada and Canadians to foreign influence. Take in those who want to contribute to Canadian society. This could be done through permanent residency just the same. There is no need for this if we insure universal human rights for both Citizens and non-citizens in Canada.

5) Restore evidence-based decision making:

• Restore Long Form Census. Rehire Munir Sheik as Chief Statistician of Canada and give him the Order of Canada.
• Repeal C-38 sections that wrecked environmental assessment (EA). Eliminate any EA role for energy regulatory agencies (NEB, offshore petroleum boards, CNSC, etc) and return EA to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Repeal C-38 destruction of CEAA, and further amend the Act to remove the conflict of interest found in the pre-2011 CEAA. A good model can be found in the Liberal 1993 Red Book (never implemented).
• Repeal C-38 elimination of the National Round Table on Environment and Economy.
• Re-hire scientists.
• Restore funding to the Canadian Climate Forum (formerly the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences).
• Restore funding to Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL).
• Restore the Marine Mammals Contaminants Programme.
• Restore testing of smokestacks for air quality.
• Restore ozone layer testing.
• Restore freshwater science. Resume funding and DFO work in Experimental Lakes Area.
• Restore research funding and monitoring for ecological integrity to Parks Canada.

This is a whole bunch of wasted money, but I could see it happening. The public service is way too big. We should have private companies pay for assessments then the federal government hire someone they want to do the assessment or simply provide a secret grant to an academic research organization that is a publically funded university etc.. and just provide grants for work they do rather than keeping pubic service scientists on tap. I think that any interests should be done privately, or though NGO's be their international or domestic. The government should just be executing laws, they should not be in the business of funding their own private think tanks. Let MPs get their info and work with that, let constiuents voice their concerns, let the government police the laws, government should not be in the business of making laws or creating non legislative means to police private individuals or corporations. It is the police's job to charge people with crimes or citizens to do citizens arrests, and people right to launch private law suits that should be merit based, let people do their own work and insure that health and safety such as hazmat information and chemical processes are known. Don't restrict this information from the public to only government inspectors held secretly so the public doesn't know what is going on in their own backyard. There is no reason why people who know what is going on cannot raise public concern over those things. We shouldn't be in the business of paying people to find problems. We should set standards and keep with those, and insure they are implemented. Corporate board minutes should be publically accessible like court records, not only to share holders but all members of the public, so too should corporate reports and records under freedom of information, not just for government but all businesses that have a stake in the shared environment or health of the public. Sue these companies to death if they are doing things that endanger and harm the public. Insure that attempts to cover up that harm are treated as murder.

6) Repair environmental laws and policy:

• Repeal C-38:

I. Damage to Fisheries Act (restore habitat protection, reverse administrative changes in interpretation of “deleterious to fish” as meaning acute toxicity at LD50, as well as removing the equivalency provisions for provincial down-loading);
II. Section that amended NEB also damaged Species at Risk Act, Navigable Waters Protection At, Fisheries Act exempting these acts – as not applying along route of a pipeline;
III. As above in decision-making section, restore CEAA as sole agency to oversee environmental reviews.

• Repeal C-45:

I. Restore Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), and repeal the 2009 omnibus bill that re-defined “navigable waters” to a matter of ministerial discretion. Return NWPA to its pre-2006 condition. Navigable waters are any and all waters that can be navigated.

• Restore funding to Canadian Environmental Network.

I think the approach is wrong. Hold people who do harm to the shared environment through law suits. Sue them out of business. If they endanger or harm public health hold them accountable as murderers or at least for man-slaughter if they didn't know it would kill people hold the board and all decision makers accountable not just a fall guy.

If these networks are doing their job they should be loaded after a few suits.

7) Climate action:

• Ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
• Work with other Kyoto parties and support the information sections and the mechanisms, especially the Clean Development Mechanism. No new targets need be established within the KP as our new targets will evolve in the new comprehensive COP21 agreement.
• Restore ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes program.
• Consider the other actions in place in 2006 that the Harper administration cancelled.

No, I don't agree here, Kyoto is dead, end of story. Stop giving subsidies to the wealthy public to renovate their homes. Let the old ones fall down and build new better homes in their place. Stop plugging the hole and get a new bucket.

STOP the bleed of tax payer funds to private interests, and just stop taxing money to give to someone else. Its just a way of stealing from one person, its peter and pauling and it needs to stop. The programs arn't fairly administered.

The federal government should focus on its own crumbling infrastructure and stop meddling in private interests that just serves as a form of class embezzlement. If you want to make efficient homes do it for the military service members, for MPs so they don't get to cheat the public on their own luxuries, and for the poor and people with no income security to end poverty by removing the rent wage slavery burden, forget people who have money already. Let them drink less or actually use their money on things that are beneficial. Giving them handouts with no public benefit is idiocy.

8) Repair Official Development Assistance:

• Restore funding to MATCH, KAIROS, Canadian Council for International Cooperation, etc.
• Consider re-establishing CIDA as its own agency, but at a minimum reverse funding cuts and restore goal of poverty alleviation.

No, start spending on local issue of poverty and human rights problems, focus local forget the world. Canada has enough of its own problems to flush money down the toilet in foreign states. If people want to help overseas let them with their own money stop spending public money on partisan pet projects.

9) Service Canada:

• In what was described as an effort to save money, the Harper administration created a new department to house administrative, IT and finance roles. Call for a full audit by the Auditor General and determine if Service Canada has in fact resulted in savings, or, if, as many suspect, it has been a boondoggle. Consider restoring functionality in the public service.

Everything should be steam rolled into one service, forget departmentalization. You should have people working for the federal government in Capacities not working for government ministries in roles.

10) Reverse monumental mistakes:

• Cancel any federal funding to Canadian Memorial to the Victims of Communism and cancel plans for its current location. Allow it to proceed in another location with a more modest and reasonable design as a private charitable project.
• Restore land from French Cove in Cape Breton Highlands National Park to the park, reversing private give-away to private sector interests. Allow the so-called Mother Canada statue to be built on an appropriate site in industrial Cape Breton.

These are definately partisan motivated projects, and I am suprised such a plain political statement didn't get viewed as a conflict of interest, and hate speech against communists. You could understand a monument for victims of stalin, however doing it for "communism" is just very hate speech related as Canadians have freedoms of conscience and belief, such a broad blanket statement is clearly hate speech against communists.

11) Repair national parks:

• Cancel any and all plans to further privatize within national parks.
• Amend the Sable Island National Parks Act to remove the role of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board as a regulator within the park. Ban seismic testing, drilling and any industrial activity in the park.
• Amend the Rouge Valley National Parks Act to restore ecological integrity.
• Re-affirm the guiding principle of the National Parks Act to protect ecological integrity.

The national parks scheme is a problematic, where there is an oppourtunity to raise funds from crownland in sustainable ways it should be done, clearly, if ROI exists. However, national parks should just fall under the same standard, hopefully high as all other crownlands. Ecological integrety should exist across the board not just to strips of land with a name, parkland attached to it. All of Canada should be protected and mindful investment of those natural resources considered to a high standard, all of Canada should be considered a park.

12) Repair legislative damage to First Nations rights and title:

• Amend the NWT devolution act to restore the water boards and other agencies created by treaty.
• Repeal C-27 (First Nations Financial Transparency Act) and S-2 (Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act).
• Restore funding and re-open the National Aboriginal Health Organization and the First Nations Statistical Institute.

Canada has to uphold its legal treaties and protect the rights of all Canadian citizens whether on reserve or off.

Funding needs to be cut to all first nations special interest and governance projects, let them manage their own affairs end the Indian Affairs. Engage on a basis of treaty and stop special minority status on non treaty / legal basis. We need to treat first nations as Canadians not as other than Canadian, the Citizen Plus model should be taken and we need to stop managing first nations. If we have grants for infrastructure or projects it should be on the obvious basis of insuring charter rights, and international human rights are upheld to a standard that would be expected for any Canadian.

13) Women’s rights:

• Restore purpose of Status of Women Canada to include achieving equality for women.
• Restore funding to Canadian Association of Women and the Law, National Action Committee, etc.
• Institute an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.
• Implement pay equity for women in federal civil service.
• Repeal manipulative laws that contort women’s rights creating increased risks to women:

I. S-7 (Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act)
II. C-36 (Sex trade worker law)

STOP THE SEXISM. All Canadians should be treated equally. Stop the special minority status BS, there are as many women as men in Canada. This isn't the 1970s. I'm actually very concerned about the continued ultrafemnisim that is pervasively growing in Canada, we need to treat people as equals, this special status stuff is clearly unconstitutional.

We need to equalize the law, not create more minority rules. This is only causing inequalities and those inequalities will have detrimental social effects, because it will not create a discourse of social harmony but rather one of discrimination, prejudice, and hate.

14) Restore funding to CBC-Radio Canada:

• Cancel sale of assets.

CBC should fund itself, but it makes sense for the federal government to pay for specific services for a national broadcaster to insure that there is a public outlet on the airwaves, as more than a propaganda outlet. However programming should not be commercial. if there is more funding to the CBC it should be to remove commercials and commercially funded programming to make it a national broadcaster instead of a commercial broadcaster. At the very least some blocks of time should be national broadcast blocks for informational programming on federal services, laws etc.. As it exist the CBC really ins't serving the national interest, it is a commercial outlet and if that is the case it should operate on that basis. However the federal government should have it at arms length and not use it as capital, management should be done by insure there is return on funds invested for the national interest.

15) Reverse cessation of home delivery by Canada Post

Some areas have never had home delivery. It should be based on cost savings and quality of service. Frankly some areas may be better served by home delivery instead of an insecure location. HOWEVER, home delivery should be a billed service for those who want it. Canada should stop subsidzing home delivery. It is a slap in the face to rural Canadians who have never had home delivery, it is also isn't an essential service anymore.

16) Investor State agreements that cannot be undone:

• Canada-China Investment Treaty was signed and ratified without any hearings in Parliament, without a ratification vote in the House or Senate.
• The earliest Canada can be out from under this treaty is 2045. To protect Canadian interests and sovereignty, we need a law requiring immediate public disclosure of any and all complaints by the People’s Republic of China against Canadian legislation, regulation or policy changes, pending or concluded, at all levels of government. This notification includes any diplomatic pressure from the PRC in the six month window for conflict resolution prior to the lodging of an actual arbitration claim. Canada must be prepared to pay damages to the People’s Republic of China if our environment, labour or safety laws require it. The Canada-China Investment Treaty is the worst of the changes wrought in the Harper era. It could operate to stop the needed repairs. All we can do now is ask to re-negotiate while ensuring our domestic legislation guarantees transparency.

Better idea just end all bilateral and multilateral treaties, and insure that all these treaties only exist on a basis of prior existing harmony in domestic Canadian law. Treaty should not violate the domestic law ante dium, stop these pricks from agreeing to things that are unlawful.

Edited November 2, 2015 by nerve

[nerve]

A great list most of which I agree and it shows how much harm Harper regime has caused in Canada and to Canadians in his long long reign.

Little has been said about C-36 though and it must be reconsidered by the new popular government of Justin Trudeau. I don't know much about the bill itself but rather the manner in which or reason for, it became law, This bill which was brought in by previous conservative regime and pushed by the former so called justice minister was prepared in rush without any consideration for sex workers' lives and safety (to meet the Supreme Court of Canada deadline which struck down previous sex trade laws because it assessed that they would endanger sex workers). More importantly sex workers who were most affected were NOT even consulted and were excluded. Also because of bill C-36 clients of those sex workers cannot report the underage and those forced into trade if and when they come across one as they would be prosecuted if they do and that is horrible. The conservative regime called its own selected witnesses and exclude those who wanted to speak against the bill. They did all these for political gains only and in order to keep their core support happy, that is mainly the religious right.

The bill is opposed by sex workers groups and they call it "Pickton's law' referring to Robert Pickton who murdered many innocent sex workers because those previous laws which had made communications in public illegal caused the poor workers to be lured to his home and murdered. The new laws are even worse than the laws struck down by Supreme Court in 2013 according to sex worker organizations. The New Prime Minister Justine Trudeau opposed this bill and so did Mulcair. Now that he is the Prime Minister and with a majority he should reconsider the bill or best send it to the Supreme Court and there is a good chance that it will be struck down again for same reasons it was struck down in 2013.

I don't know what laws would be the best (sex workers know it best as what laws protect them best) as I am not an expert in the subject nor does it affect me personally but I strongly oppose any laws that would endanger or adversely affect the most vulnerable citizens namely minorities, females, elderly and children.

Yeah since when is sex illegal, it isn't.

You know you can't have sex with animals, you can't have sex with minors, its really that simple.

If people commit other crimes fine, but if people want to get money for sex that is their business. Why make it more complex than a consensual act free of duress?

If its not rape who cares. Put this thing to sleep already.

Edited November 2, 2015 by nerve

[nerve]

So in future instead of governments doing new things they should spend all of their time undoing what the previous has done.

So in future instead of governments doing new things they should spend all of their time undoing the bad things the previous has done.

Yeah there should be way more repealing and annulment of laws.

There are just way to many of them and they are horribly constructed. And thats just the law on the book not the case law.

So much needs to be gutted, and codified to make it sane and transparent. thus a fair legal system.

Edited November 2, 2015 by nerve

[nerve]

The sex workers want to be able to set up brothels, or work out of their own homes, which sounds fine -- until it turns out their home is next door to you. Then it's not so fine. That's why the government won't legalize that.

OMG people having sex in your neighbours house?

Let me guess all your neighbours are 90 some men who havn't heard of viagra?

This statement is laughable.

Oh no people having sex in someones house that isn't yours, oh, no.

I'd be happy my neighbour had a job they were happy with.

Would you be just as shocked about a masseuse setting up shop next door?

It is sex, who the heck cares?

If it ain't animals or minors who cares it what your couple neighbours are probably doing, the only difference, the sex trade will bring money into your neighbourhood, the other non sexworking couples having sex won't by default.

This is the same completely unvalidated bias applied to social service sites like rehab centers, with people thinking trash people in their neighbourhood are devils, when in fact these are average people living their life and trying to make the most of it. Fact is the neighbours who are all incognito are ones that could be cartel members or hells etc.. without you having the slightest clue. Honestly is way better than all this stuff being kept secret, so you arn't aware of what dangers exist and what is going on in your neighbourhood. that is what victimless criminalization does, it forces people into hiding which keeps you out of the know.

Harm reduction is in all instances I have encounter way more beneficial to communities as a whole than cultural class enforcement actions by governments. These attacks on the marginalized end up causing more problems and degrade human rights values of soceities. Without transparency and acceptance of non victimizing cultural practices, things will stay in the back alley and lead to greater victimization.

Edited November 2, 2015 by nerve

[nerve]

The flaw is this logic is: official brothels will have to impose standards on the workers (no shooting up, constant std tests, et. al.) yet it is extremely unlikely that the most at risk women (meaning women trapped in a drug addiction cycle) will be able to comply with those standards. This will ensure they still end up on the street as they do now dealing with the clients that the brothel won't take. Getting these women off drugs should be the priority if the objective is to reduce harm.

Not all prostitutes are using drugs. That is a false stereotype.

Your argument is baseless.

Your authentic statement would be we should fund more rehab facilities and do more health promotion into leading healthy lifestyles, or give subsidies or payments to Canadians who don't use drugs, so that a benefit exists in not using drugs.

Or we should insure that dangerous chemicals are not put on the streets and that we offer drugs that are not as harmful but more addicting to reduce the damage that dangerous drugs do to people.

Some drugs actually are beneficial, as a coping mechanism of people who live horrible lives without the luxuries the middle class or rich has. Drugs are an escape mechanism for some people in poverty, so we should provide less harmful escapes for those people by providing them with drugs that they will prefer to use over street drugs but do not have the same harmful side effects.

Not all prostitutes are women. There are male prostitutes also.

Just saying crackwhores they all are, is total bs.

If you don't provide an alternative to how it is, you offer nothing to the solution, and it is idle talk.

They are human beings not a product or human resource.

Edited November 2, 2015 by nerve

[TimG]

Not all prostitutes are using drugs. That is a false stereotype.

Why do so many people insert their own prejudices instead of reading what was written in the post?

I will parse the relevant part for you:

yet it is extremely unlikely that the most at risk women (meaning women trapped in a drug addiction cycle) will be able to comply with those standards.

The phrasing "the most at risk women" clearly implies a subset of a larger group. IOW, I know that not all prostitutes are addicts but many of those who aren't (e.g. escorts) are able to control who and where they meet clients and don't face the same level of risk.

My point is brothels may or may not help some women but it is delusional to believe that the most at risk will be helped by brothels (for the reasons stated in posts above). We will still end up with street level prostitution used by johns who are rejected by the brothels looking for women too addicted to work in the brothels.

[nerve]

Why do so many people insert their own prejudices instead of reading what was written in the post?

I will parse the relevant part for you:

The phrasing "the most at risk women" clearly implies a subset of a larger group. IOW, I know that not all prostitutes are addicts but many of those who aren't (e.g. escorts) are able to control who and where they meet clients and don't face the same level of risk.

My point is brothels may or may not help some women but it is delusional to believe that the most at risk will be helped by brothels (for the reasons stated in posts above). We will still end up with street level prostitution used by johns who are rejected by the brothels looking for women too addicted to work in the brothels.

End up with?

On the contrary taking prostitution further out of the gutters will only further alienate people from street drugs.

Of course you probably want to insure price shopping with cheap crack hoars for poor or cheap johns.

I think you just have no clue that there are prostitutes, and they ain't all crack whores. If people can go to a safe prostitute they know is std free or use a crack whore from dubious perspectives, that is the johns call. Its up to the johns on who they want as clients as much as it is the prostitutes who they want as clients.

Fact is you ain't getting rid of the crack whore either way, at least this way you take it out of the the dark alleys and gutters, which will dramatically reduce the risk for those who don't want to be shady about it.

It is doing more harm to keep it in the dark. In reality those who are in the know already have access there is just increased social stigma for having sex.

Lets face it though people arn't waiting until marriage to have sex anymore, if they ever were.

In the olden days you hear about date rapes, peer pressure sex, indoctrination through mass media, buying love with artificial romance. Its just forcing social values, when in fact the prior society isn't that great because people are raping people and doing horrible things to women, when those women could be in safer environments, and engaging in only consensual acts with no hiding in the dark required, and access to legal recourse they didn't have against bad people.

Lets get real there are drug addict whores and drug addict women, there are drug addicts who don't resort to prostitution.

There are lots of drug addicts. What is your point, why associate those things. There are probably more drug addict women who arn't prostitutes than those who are. On that same note there are probably more drug addict men than drug addict women.

Its all about subcultures and habitus.

It wasn't healthy the way it was and there are better ways. Why keep things in the dark. You arn't going to cure prostitution. Your silver lined cloud doesn't exist, stop thinking people will magically go clean in droves to end dark and dirty prostitution. It is lifestyle, unless you provide a better one you arn't going to do it. Yours isn't fitting their lifestyle, it offers no future they want, that is why it fails.

Edited November 2, 2015 by nerve

[CITIZEN_2015]

Yeah since when is sex illegal, it isn't.

You know you can't have sex with animals, you can't have sex with minors, its really that simple.

If people commit other crimes fine, but if people want to get money for sex that is their business. Why make it more complex than a consensual act free of duress?

If its not rape who cares. Put this thing to sleep already.

As of December 2014 paying for sex is illegal. In fact criminal up to 5 years in jail (bill C-36 and I am talking about consensual sex between adults. There are cases where on side is force or there is underage involved but those cases are not consensual sex between adults what what is now illegal is the latter. I have no issue with that but sex workers are saying that their safety and even lives are in danger as a result and wish to abolish that. Trudeau opposed when the former government was trying to pass this into law so lets see what he is going to do about it when he is in government.

Edited November 2, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[TimG]

I think you just have no clue that there are prostitutes, and they ain't all crack whores. ...

You really have a problem with reading comprehension and basic logic.

Saying that some prostitutes are trapped in a cycle of addiction is NOT saying that all prostitutes are addicts.

Saying that prostitutes who are addicts will likely not be able the use brothels because they would have trouble adhering to the most basic rules required of a workplace (i.e. don't show up to work high) should not be debatable.

Furthermore not all Johns will want to go to brothels because of either the loss of anonymity or they are just a**holes that the brothels refuse to serve.

So now you have a demand (John's) and a supply (addicts) with no legal place complete the transaction. Logic says they will keep doing what they are doing today unless you crack down really hard on street level prostitution which would be the exact opposite of what the SCC wanted to accomplish by striking down the law.

Brothels will really only work for women who currently work as escorts but they are not a 'high risk' group because they have considerable control over who they meet and where. Even then escorts could find their clients prefer the existing model where they come to their hotel room which makes the brothels moot.

Edited November 2, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Brothels will really only work for women who currently work as escorts but they are not a 'high risk' group because they have considerable control over who they meet and where. Even then escorts could find their clients prefer the existing model where they come to their hotel room which makes the brothels moot.

Which is like saying "Some people like to play poker in their basements, so therefore legalizing gambling is faulty."

[Keepitsimple]

So now you have a demand (John's) and a supply (addicts) with no legal place complete the transaction. Logic says they will keep doing what they are doing today unless you crack down really hard on street level prostitution which would be the exact opposite of what the SCC wanted to accomplish by striking down the law.

Makes a lot of sense....there is always that dreaded law - the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[Argus]

OMG people having sex in your neighbours house?

Let me guess all your neighbours are 90 some men who havn't heard of viagra?

We're talking about prostitution and a steady stream of johns coming and going. You think it's 90 year old men who are concerned? It's thirty year old mothers, bud. And anyone concerned about home prices, because if a prostitute sets up next door you just lost about a third of the value of your house.

[TimG]

Which is like saying "Some people like to play poker in their basements, so therefore legalizing gambling is faulty."

Where did I say brothels should not be legalized? All I am doing is pointing out that brothels will do little to address the problems in the industry and if all the legislation did is make brothels legal it would not change much.

[Argus]

Not all prostitutes are using drugs. That is a false stereotype.

Your argument is baseless.

Well, maybe not all, but most.

ALL 60 SUBJECTS REPORTED SOME FORM OF DRUG USE, WITH 72 PERCENT HAVING USED HEROIN, 93 PERCENT HAVING USED MARIJUANA, AND 83 PERCENT HAVING USED COCAINE.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63886

Drug use is intrinsically linked to prostitution, especially street prostitution. Estimates suggest that between 40 and 85 per cent of all prostitutes are drug users

http://alcoholrehab.com/drug-addiction/sexual-exploitation-and-substance-abuse/

About 90 percent of Detroit’s street prostitutes are addicted to crack cocaine.

http://www.rehabs.com/surge-in-heroin-addiction-linked-to-increased-prostitution/

Edited November 2, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Where did I say brothels should not be legalized? All I am doing is pointing out that brothels will do little to address the problems in the industry and if all the legislation did is make brothels legal it would not change much.

I don't think brothels are the whole solution, but as soon as no part of the transaction is illegal, and there's no "John shaming" and the like to force transactions into the darker corners of our cities, maybe we can put some more work into the root problem.

One thing is certain, nothing done in the last 150 years has made prostitutes' lives the least bit better. The Victorian heavy handedness that created opportunities for the likes of Jack the Ripper have made a terrible profession all the worse.

[webc5]

What percentage of prostitutes are on crack?

[overthere]

Is somebody going to fix the horrors of Harpers legacy? balanced budget, low interest rates, dormant Quebec separatist movement, moderately brisk economy, low personal taxes, and moderate unemployment rate? This cannot stand.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Well, maybe not all, but most.

ALL 60 SUBJECTS REPORTED SOME FORM OF DRUG USE, WITH 72 PERCENT HAVING USED HEROIN, 93 PERCENT HAVING USED MARIJUANA, AND 83 PERCENT HAVING USED COCAINE.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63886

About 90 percent of Detroit’s street prostitutes are addicted to crack cocaine.

http://www.rehabs.com/surge-in-heroin-addiction-linked-to-increased-prostitution/

Do you always use the US data and worse than that, THE 1979 DATA to justify the allegation you make??? They were little or no on-line escorts then and a high percentage of sex workers were street prostitutes in 1979. For God's sake stop stigmatizing sex workers. These are the tactics that the former regime and its injustice minister used to force Bill C-36 in spite of widespread opposition from sex workers and the opposition parties.

On the second link yes I believe that about street prostitutes but I think it fell on deaf ears when I said again and again that they are less than 10% of sex workers. Escorts, Masseuses, nude dancers, are not any more drug addicts than the non-sex worker population.

Edited November 2, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

Brothels will really only work for women who currently work as escorts but they are not a 'high risk' group because they have considerable control over who they meet and where. Even then escorts could find their clients prefer the existing model where they come to their hotel room which makes the brothels moot.

Sorry not so. How did you come with this conclusion that escorts have considerable control over who they meet and where??

Those who are independent escorts maybe (and many have pimps so many of them have no say really even their pimps advertise their services without them knowing) and many of those who work for agencies they have no idea who the agency will send them so little choice as who they meet and as for where, I don't think so either. If they have to see their clients at the clients' homes or run down hotels then it can be anywhere even unsafe places and if their own place then the pimp or agency may set up a place for them. Wish what you say was true.

Excuse me to all of you guys. Brothels are legal as per C-36. Please STOP misinformation and lets share some facts. It was BEFORE C-36 that brothels were illegal but after December 2014 being in a bawdy house is not illegal anymore (thanks to SCC ruling in 2013). It is now paying for sex (not selling sex) which is illegal. I explained in my posts before in great details as why this new laws jeopardize the safety of sex workers and they (escorts, masseuses, non-club dancers, street prostitutes) are citizens of this country and entitled to be protected by the government.

Trudeau, Mulcair and May and their parties opposed the bill (C-36) for same reasons as they were concerned about its effectiveness and how harmful it maybe to sex workers. They Cared (unlike the conservative government) and now that the Liberal party is in government it is time to (maybe not repeal it completely) to change it or regulate and/or decriminalize prostitution (I am no expert as what would be best laws for best protection of citizens).

Edited November 2, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[TimG]

Those who are independent escorts maybe (and many have pimps so many of them have no say really even their pimps advertise their services without them knowing) and many of those who work for agencies they have no idea who the agency will send them so little choice as who they meet and as for where, I don't think so either. If they have to see their clients at the clients' homes or run down hotels then it can be anywhere even unsafe places and if their own place then the pimp or agency may set up a place for them. Wish what you say was true.

The agency also knows where they are sent and is able to keep track of "bad" johns. My understanding is they have a driver/guard near by if things go south. You can't really argue that brothels will protect against bad bosses because brothels will be just another profit making business and any abuse you can imagine happening to escorts can happen in a brothel if management chooses to allow. Just like good management of escort services have all of the tools they need to keep their people safe. The risk profile is orders of magnitude less than the risk profile for a street walker.

[CITIZEN_2015]

The agency also knows where they are sent and is able to keep track of "bad" johns. My understanding is they have a driver/guard near by if things go south. You can't really argue that brothels will protect against bad bosses because brothels will be just another profit making business and any abuse you can imagine happening to escorts can happen in a brothel if management chooses to allow. Just like good management of escort services have all of the tools they need to keep their people safe. The risk profile is orders of magnitude less than the risk profile for a street walker.

Not sure really. Bad Johns can easily change cell phone number and names and especially with Bill C-36 they all (bad or good) very likely refuse to provide verifiable personal information so not so. They cannot keep track of bad Johns post bill C-36 (one of many reasons why bill C-36 jeopardizes the safety of sex workers). The driver is NOT with the sex worker and the John but outside at best on nearby streets but in most cases they are driving around the city having several workers in their cars dropping them off and picking them up all the time far away from where the sex worker is, so again not so. Sex workers having bosses was and still is illegal (for bosses not sex workers) and rightly so. Making profit of prostitution (other than workers) is criminal now and should be. But I agree brothels is better option than streets and I think they should remain legal post C-36 but not pimping or bad Johns belong to jail.

Edited November 2, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015