TGirl-Kay 7484 Report post Posted March 13, 2011 The Globe and Mail has a great article that I'm sure that most of you have read by now http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/state-has-no-obligation-to-protect-prostitutes-ottawa-to-argue-at-appeal/article1935992/ The comments are great as well. What I'm not hearing is how we the people affected by these laws are supporting the groups who are going to court on our behalf. My Local organization POWER www.powerottawa.ca is in need of funds to help cover court costs, so I'm going to pledge $50.00 a month to them and also do some third party fund raiseing to help out. What are others planning on doing to help support the organizations in the citys where they live? November who is hopefull Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Megan'sTouch 23875 Report post Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) What I'm not hearing is how we the people affected by these laws are supporting the groups who are going to court on our behalf. My Local organization POWER www.powerottawa.ca is in need of funds to help cover court costs, so I'm going to pledge $50.00 a month to them and also do some third party fund raiseing to help out. November, Thank you so much for bringing this to CERB's attention. Just to elaborate, POWER has been granted intervener status in the court challenge on prostitution laws. Our goal is FULL DECRIMINALIZATION of prostitution. NOT licensing, NOT the Swedish model (criminalizing clients). This is something that will impact all of us on CERB, providers and clients alike. POWER has two wonderful lawyers working for us pro-bono. However, we still have about $4000 in legal costs including hefty photocopying, legal fees, travel & accomodations for our lawyers, etc. We are looking into fundraising, donations, anything we can! Edited March 13, 2011 by Megan'sTouch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lou 9208 Report post Posted March 13, 2011 Megan, I was wondering, are you aware by now if the adorable abolitionist coalition have been granted Intervener status? I would love to know and also to have their factums. So if I understand well, the fact that POWER has an equality argument that is not brought by article 15 of the Charter but by 7th, you are welcome to intervene? If so, that is great news. I wrote about my understanding of your argument in this thread: http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=203853#post203853 If you believe I was incorrect, feel free to let me know! Lou Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VedaSloan 119179 Report post Posted March 13, 2011 I was really pleased when I read the comments section (which can be dangerous!) and all the comments were positive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted March 13, 2011 .... What I'm not hearing is how we the people affected by these laws are supporting the groups who are going to court on our behalf... You can donate to SPOC, the organization behind the Bedford v Canada Constitutional Challenge, here: http://www.spoc.ca/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SamanthaEvans 166766 Report post Posted March 13, 2011 Megan, I was wondering, are you aware by now if the adorable abolitionist coalition have been granted Intervener status? I would love to know and also to have their factums. I'd like to know about them, too! I was really pleased when I read the comments section (which can be dangerous!) and all the comments were positive. That was a great surprise to me, too, this week, Berlin. The G&M comments are rarely so positive. I will donate to POWER and to SPOC, absolutely! It's hard to know how else to help. If I didn't have such a strong need to protect my own privacy, I would be pleased to take a public stance, as I'm sure would many other women. I'm grateful that others are able to represent those of us who cannot take the risk to speak for ourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lowdark 5613 Report post Posted March 13, 2011 A fairly presented article. It will be interesting to see how the government reacts (squirms) when confronted with double standards their arguement raises. I especially liked the comment about Harper needing a security detail, and that he too chose a profession fraught with danger and risk (therefore requiring said security). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scribbles 6031 Report post Posted March 13, 2011 I'm having trouble with the "inherently risky work" angle. I mean, really? What is inherently risky, in fact, about the work? (don't jump all over me yet) Spending time with a client having dinner is not a risky activity in and of itself. Dinner carries a low risk, unless you have allergies. :) Conversation can create a risk of boredom, but that's about it. And the act of having sex? You could argue health risks, but everyone else has sex as well which means they are partaking in a risky behaviour. So, what you are left with is a typical activity being undertaken for profit that is being made inherently risky by outside factors, ie criminal legislative provisions. Is say dangerous criminal legislative provisions are EXACTLY what the state is supposed to protect people from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lowdark 5613 Report post Posted March 14, 2011 They had better have a pretty solid plan B becuase if this "argument" is there best shot, they are going to get killed. A first year law student could poke more holes in this than a pound of swiaa cheese in about twnety minutes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
