Petition re: the Nordic Model

[CuriousMatt 660]

I took the time to sign with my real name. As some others have said early on, no one will take a petition seriously if it is filled primarily with aliases.

 

Although I choose to keep this part of my life a secret from those who are part of my civilian life, I believe that it is important to provide verifiable names to illustrate that real people are have concerns for the health and safety for those working and participating in this chosen lifestyle.

 

I have long advocated for legalizing the sex industry, in all of it forms... I can remember having this discussion at least 15 years ago with some friends at a gathering. Most of them were in agreement with the opinions I expressed.

 

That being said, tomorrow will be my 1 month anniversary that I am active on this board, which also happens to be my first personal introduction to this lifestyle.

 

What is the point of my diatribe? It means, that there are a lot of people who share out opinion, without ever partaking.

 

Simply two cents! (Sorry RG for the paraphrase/steal)

[Guest Ou**or**n]

Signed with real name. Somehow I believe if the Nordic model were ever to get adopted then it would get eventually get struck down by the SCC. I have no problem publically being on the side of what I believe will ultimately prove best for women in Canada. Hopefully this will be one part of a large number of simultaneous efforts to convince the government not to pursue this path.

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

I signed on using my civilian identity. We are guaraneeted freedom of speech under the Charter so I have no fears of issues with the" Hill."

[fortunateone 156618]

I feel that some folks think that signing the petition is admitting that they partake in it, in some way, whether client or sp. I don't see that at all. There are a variety of different folks signing up, and as citizens i don't think it is a big issue to sign under your real name to say that.

 

I don't think the govt dept that will receive the copy of the petition are planning to scrutinize all the signatures and investigate them as to what they do for work, or in their spare time, considering both things are legal. ;)

 

@RG, I wish the poster of the petition was accessible too. I would like to ask why are so many signatures needed on this petition, given there is another pro-nordic model petition that only needed 3000 or less signatures. I wonder how/why the minimums are determined :)

 

Also it would be nice to thank the person, and/or find out a bit about them. :)

 

Maybe someone with twitter will post a link to this petitition on #notyourrescueproject for more exposure :)

[mrrnice2 157005]

Added my name as well.

 

A reminder that there is a March 17th deadline for adding your opinions to the Government of Canada Public Consultation on Prostitution-Related Offences in Canada Survey. It may be found here.

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

I feel that some folks think that signing the petition is admitting that they partake in it, in some way, whether client or sp. I don't see that at all. There are a variety of different folks signing up, and as citizens i don't think it is a big issue to sign under your real name to say that.

 

I don't think the govt dept that will receive the copy of the petition are planning to scrutinize all the signatures and investigate them as to what they do for work, or in their spare time, considering both things are legal. ;)

 

@RG, I wish the poster of the petition was accessible too. I would like to ask why are so many signatures needed on this petition, given there is another pro-nordic model petition that only needed 3000 or less signatures. I wonder how/why the minimums are determined :)

 

Also it would be nice to thank the person, and/or find out a bit about them. :)

 

Maybe someone with twitter will post a link to this petitition on #notyourrescueproject for more exposure :)

 

It has been reTweeted several times including me.

[roamingguy 300291]

Still waiting for my board handle name vote to go so I can vote under my real name

But stumbled across this link by petition voter Bob Rae (The Bob Rae I don't know)

http://www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2014/03/06/rethinking-prostitution-doc-and-talk/

 

RG

[Raven Rain 10542]

I signed the petition under my government name,especially when someone earlier said just because you sign doesnt mean you are an SP/client

it shows I am standing up for what I believe in.

[drlove 37202]

Signed with real name. Somehow I believe if the Nordic model were ever to get adopted then it would get eventually get struck down by the SCC. I have no problem publically being on the side of what I believe will ultimately prove best for women in Canada. Hopefully this will be one part of a large number of simultaneous efforts to convince the government not to pursue this path.

 

I agree that the Nordic model would eventually get struck down... The question is, when? How long would it conceivably take to mount yet another constitutional challenge and see it through? I certainly don't want to be forced to curtail my hobbying for the next "x" number of years for fear of the law. Also who will do it? Something tells me the Conservative government is hellbent on pushing this through no matter what.

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

I agree that the Nordic model would eventually get struck down... The question is, when? How long would it conceivably take to mount yet another constitutional challenge and see it through? I certainly don't want to be forced to curtail my hobbying for the next "x" number of years for fear of the law. Also who will do it? Something tells me the Conservative government is hellbent on pushing this through no matter what.

 

Spoken to me by many avid voters, they say " there are much much bigger issues in Canada then how or where people get laid"

 

I honestly do not think this is the biggest issues that Canada has on the agenda. I mean if that is all that the conservatives are worried about then failure will be in their future...then Problem solved hahah.

Keep you eyes on NDP/Green, that is where you will find most of the " fem-pro" mind set.

 

We have much more to concern ourselves, this is not a " top topic" in my opinion. Even if it were, I doubt they are concerned with what we are doing as individuals in our homes, it will be the street level. This is the real issue to be worried about if your concern is found in human rights and safety:(

[drlove 37202]

Spoken to me by many avid voters, they say " there are much much bigger issues in Canada then how or where people get laid"

 

I honestly do not think this is the biggest issues that Canada has on the agenda. I mean if that is all that the conservatives are worried about then failure will be in their future...then Problem solved hahah.

Keep you eyes on NDP/Green, that is where you will find most of the " fem-pro" mind set.

 

We have much more to concern ourselves, this is not a " top topic" in my opinion. Even if it were, I doubt they are concerned with what we are doing as individuals in our homes, it will be the street level. This is the real issue to be worried about if your concern is found in human rights and safety:(

 

I feel it's more the principle of it all... why should anyone be put in a position where they fear the long arm of the law for simply seeing an escort? Why should sex workers be forced into even more unsafe working conditions? And for that matter, why should the government be free to implement any laws they want, even those which fly in the face of the SCC ruling?

 

It's these sorts of things that make my blood boil - especially since Peter Mackay initially said that the Nordic model was not the right fit for Canada... Well, along comes Joy Smith who practically brow beat him into submission to acquiesce to her backward, moralistic way of thinking. She's pushing her agenda at every opportunity, so look out!

[Katherine of Halifax 113931]

Spoken to me by many avid voters, they say " there are much much bigger issues in Canada then how or where people get laid"

 

I honestly do not think this is the biggest issues that Canada has on the agenda. I mean if that is all that the conservatives are worried about then failure will be in their future...then Problem solved hahah.

Keep you eyes on NDP/Green, that is where you will find most of the " fem-pro" mind set.

 

We have much more to concern ourselves, this is not a " top topic" in my opinion. Even if it were, I doubt they are concerned with what we are doing as individuals in our homes, it will be the street level. This is the real issue to be worried about if your concern is found in human rights and safety:(

 

I agree with you Sophia, Ladies that have a discreet in call have absolutely nothing to worry about now or in the future.

 

Gentleman that have concerns, whether it now or in the future just have to be careful about how and who they hobby with.

 

I understand it in perfect world all would be in the open and we can do what we want. No matter what we need to use caution in this business regardless of what the government has to say or what the law determines of our comings and goings.

[canuckhooker 19202]

Will you please give it a rest. It is axiomatic, here at least, that what a politician says and what they do are two different things. You running around like Chicken Little imagining the worst, with absolutely no proof that it will happen is nothing but fear-mongering and wanting to hear your own voice.

 

I will repeat, this is not a Conservative party issue. They would like it to go away. And the king-in-waiting, Justin, thinks the Nordic model is just Peachy. When a lot of the feminist groups who are also abolitionists start putting pressure on Ms May or Mr Mulcair, they too will not take sides. They will waffle with the best of them.

 

So, my question to you is, in this forum, what do you think any of us have to gain with your consistent running around crying the sky is falling, crying wolf, Tory-bashing etc etc? Do you love the sound of your own voice that much that you want to inflict it on us all?"

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

People in this forum have the right to express their opinions. You call them crying the wolf and they may as well call you living in a delusional rosy status in a hobbying forum. Therefore, the best approach is for each of us to express our own opinions without parental guidance.

 

"All of you" should not silence some of us. Isn't this what the Charter is about? Of course, assuming that you are the spokesman de facto of the majority!

[canuckhooker 19202]

People in this forum have the right to express their opinions. You call them crying the wolf and they may as well call you living in a delusional rosy status in a hobbying forum. Therefore, the best approach is for each of us to express our own opinions without parental guidance.

 

"All of you" should not silence some of us. Isn't this what the Charter is about? Of course, assuming that you are the spokesman de facto of the majority!

 

I could not agree more with your sentiments, if in fact what was being stated was an opinion. But this poster in particular has made it his personal goal to blame this all on one political party with complete disregard of the facts or ignoring facts that differ from his point of view. In fact he is not stating opinion he is on the attack. And I for one find it offensive.

 

Secondly if his arguments were reasoned and based on actual facts I would respect that, but most of what he is saying, and passing off as truth, is his own speculation, and even worse a raft of logical fallacies. (ad hominem, begging the question, appeal to fear) His hyperbole knows no bounds.

 

Questions like: How can this government put in a place a law that would fly in the face of the SCC ruling? It assumes firstly that the nordic model is what they are going to do. (again, until we see the legislation nobody knows) He says, that is what Mackay intends to do but ignores the fact that there are public consultations going on right now. That they still need to get a law through committee and review etc etc. If Mackay has made up his mind and has a law ready to go then why waste the time and effort on consultation? Why risk it getting derailed? There are only really two answers to that, either they are going to listen to input from a variety of sources, or the exercise is a sham and they are lying about actually consulting. Nobody has proof either way. I can be cynical sometimes but I have a hard believing that this is a huge hoax and they are going to fudge the results.

 

It also assumes that it is going to be the Nordic model unchanged so that it does violate the SCC ruling. And he assumes that a challenge will take years and years, absolutely ignoring the fact that the SCC ruling has set legal precedent which means the first charge can be successfully challenged in any court in the land.

 

Finally it ignores the fact that if they want to come down hard, they can criminalize prostitution without violating the SCC ruling. Making everything illegal solves that problem. We wouldn't see it that way, but it would sure make the issue very clear.

 

So yeah, if it was an opinion, I would respect it. But it is not. It is speculation and a biased political attack. It adds no new value to the argument other than to fear monger. He is rehashing the same thing over and over again in every thread he can find. If he had something insightful to say, something new, then I would be happy to listen and debate. But, it is the same biased political attack time after time.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

So yeah, if it was an opinion, I would respect it. But it is not. It is speculation and a biased political attack. It adds no new value to the argument other than to fear monger. He is rehashing the same thing over and over again in every thread he can find. If he had something insightful to say, something new, then I would be happy to listen and debate. But, it is the same biased political attack time after time.

 

Totalitarian regimes never claimed to be unwelcoming of opposing opinions. However, when they want to execute someone, their reasoning is all along the same lines of the above paragraph.

 

With all respect, it is not for you, me or anyone else to define the boundaries of opinions, what is insightful and what isn't.

 

If we as a minority (sex workers and hobbyists) want society to listen to us, then I find it hypocritical to be intolerant of those who "might" be a minority in a hobbying forum.

Last, the reason I stepped is simply because you raised a question in your post and I merely provided my own answer.

[canuckhooker 19202]

Totalitarian regimes never claimed to be unwelcoming of opposing opinions. However, when they want to execute someone, their reasoning is all along the same lines of the above paragraph.

 

With all respect, it is not for you, me or anyone else to define the boundaries of opinions, what is insightful and what isn't.

 

If we as a minority (sex workers and hobbyists) want society to listen to us, then I find it hypocritical to be intolerant of those who "might" be a minority in a hobbying forum.

Last, the reason I stepped is simply because you raised a question in your post and I merely provided my own answer.

 

Oh my apologies. I didn't realize that outright lies, ad hominem attacks and repeated statement of faulty logic with no evidence qualifies as an opinion. So I can say that in my opinion people with green eyes are devious, untrustworthy liars because I think someone with green eyes is out to get me. By the logic you are defending, that is perfectly admissible. Sounds a little like 1930's Germany to me, but I only studied history I didn't live it.

 

As for your point about having those outside the community listen to us, do you not think we will gain more favour with logic and reason and fact? If we tolerate this kind of fear-mongering, biased attacks and statements that are not factual, what does that say about us as a community?

 

You are on a slippery slope with your logic, but it is not worth arguing. I will pop on my Jackboots, and goose step out of here looking for some poor innocents to persecute and execute. <exit stage left, whistling the Horst Wessel Lied>

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Oh my apologies. I didn't realize that outright lies, ad hominem attacks and repeated statement of faulty logic with no evidence qualifies as an opinion. So I can say that in my opinion people with green eyes are devious, untrustworthy liars because I think someone with green eyes is out to get me. By the logic you are defending, that is perfectly admissible. Sounds a little like 1930's Germany to me, but I only studied history I didn't live it.

 

And I am afraid that your logic sounds like Goerge Bush (2001):

 

As for your point about having those outside the community listen to us, do you not think we will gain more favour with logic and reason and fact? If we tolerate this kind of fear-mongering, biased attacks and statements that are not factual, what does that say about us as a community?

 

Open tolerant community. It is the same reason society is giving you the right to express your opinions about the freedom of adults to exchange money for sex. For many, this opinion is irrational to the core!

 

You are on a slippery slope with your logic, but it is not worth arguing. I will pop on my Jackboots, and goose step out of here looking for some poor innocents to persecute and execute. <exit stage left, whistling the Horst Wessel Lied>

 

The audience can make their own judgement!

[canuckhooker 19202]

And I am afraid that your logic sounds like Goerge Bush (2001):

 

 

 

Open tolerant community. It is the same reason society is giving you the right to express your opinions about the freedom of adults to exchange money for sex. For many, this opinion is irrational to the core!

 

 

 

The audience can make their own judgement!

 

As we used to say in the army, the only problem with wrestling with pigs is that you both get muddy and only the pig really enjoys it. And lest I get accused of calling you a pig, let me explain that what I said is called an analogy and is used here as a rhetorical device to explain the futility of trying to reason with you. I am in no way implying that you are porcine.

 

However I do wish you would pick one side of an argument and stay on it. I had issues with ad hominem attacks, circumstantial ad hominem attacks, (look it up you might be surprised) and other logical fallacies in your friend's statements. The same faulty logic you are now applying.

 

I was clear in my last post, judging the validity of someone's actions or trying to attribute their motives to some unproven fact is wrong. I said that and then you post a George Bush video accusing me of the informal fallacy of False dilemma aka "You are with us or you are against us". Again something I never said or implied. All I am asking for is reasoned debate based on provable facts, not supposition and biased attacks.

 

Why would I say that? Well statements like " And for that matter, why should the government be free to implement any laws they want, even those which fly in the face of the SCC ruling? " Well there are two different ideas there, and false assumptions.

 

Addressing the second assumption or statement first, "flying in the face of the SCC ruling" where is the proof of this? There is none, but the OP assumes that there will be a new law, and that it will contravene the SCC ruling. Well gee I wish I had his crystal ball. And yes, if he wants to say he has that feeling, then fine, we can all disagree. But for him to repeat it in every thread where he sees an opportunity is not helpful and really lowers the quality of the debate around here.

 

The first question, "why should the government be free to implement any law they want?" . Well the answer is simple. It is called parliamentary democracy. That is how things work in this country. We hold elections, to choose our representatives, then they propose new laws, policies, and regulations. They study them, they debate them, they get passed in the house, the senate and, are given Royal Assent, then they become laws. If those laws contravene or conflict with any other law, or the constitution, or the charter etc, then we can challenge them in the courts.

 

If we don't like what they have done, then we hold them accountable at the next election. You don't like that I am sure there are a lot of other places you can live without this unfair system of government. "Crimea anyone?"

 

So again, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But they really need to be careful about making statements for which there is no proof, or which are contrary to fact.

 

The fact that his argument is based on a personal bias against one political party and assumptions he has no basis in making shows how poorly he understand the complexity of the issue. Turning this into a rant against one political party merely devalues the case that many well-informed, well-intentioned people are making in this forum and other places.

 

The fact that you choose to defend him not by debating my points or proving me wrong, but by personal attack is also wrong. I am not a totalitarian despot, nor am I George W. If you think that then you seriously misunderestimate me. (that last sentence is sarcasm, in case you need an explanation)

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

Oh my apologies. I didn't realize that outright lies, ad hominem attacks and repeated statement of faulty logic with no evidence qualifies as an opinion.

 

I agree with Miss Jane - attacking someone who "YOU FEEL" has an opinion that is different then you needs to be silenced - then please stop. Could you clarify what lies and faulty logic is being stated? More important, do I now need to worry that my opinion is going to be bashed as well, because you feel somehow it is faulty?

 

I like listening to everyones opinions - that is how I can formulate my own. I may not agree with it, but they are entitled to an opinion. Attacking someone is not cool - especially on this site. People have been kicked off for a lot less. I suggest you re-evaluate your opinions.

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

I have enjoyed much of both of your posts. For the most part.

 

I do enjoy a good philosophical debate, but the purpose of a good debate is not just sway your opponent but also to educate others ( like a symposium). With the way you 2 are discussing this, I am afraid not much has been taught to others that may be trying to learn more about this topic.

 

Perhaps a private debate would be more suited for you?

 

PEACE MAN:)

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

The fact that you choose to defend him not by debating my points or proving me wrong, but by personal attack is also wrong. I am not a totalitarian despot, nor am I George W. If you think that then you seriously misunderestimate me. (that last sentence is sarcasm, in case you need an explanation)

Of course you are not!

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Now here are the disturbing facts:

 

The pro-nordic model petition which aimed initially for 3,000 signatures has until now reached 4,513 signatures since they "upgraded" their target to 5,000 signatures.

 

The anti-nordic model petition which aimed initially for 5,000 signatures has until now, with all the patriots in the hobbying forums, reached only 1,070 signatures and they "downgraded' their target to 1500 signatures.

 

No further comment! As I am not that good with reason and logic!

 

The question is: to whom should the Honorable Peter MacKay listen in a "democratic" society?

[Frank7 3939]

The question is: to whom should the Honorable Peter MacKay listen in a "democratic" society?

 

That's the problem with democraty. It's just a number's game, no matter how unrelated or ignorant people voting may be. =(

[canuckhooker 19202]

Do not mistake a petition for any indication of public sentiment. The only thing you can really say about a petition is that it does indicate that there is a segment of the population that supports a certain view. (i.e. that there is grass roots support for support for a certain opinion)

 

However petitions have plenty of flaws, as may be seen in this excercise.

 

1. Names are easy to forge particularly online. You can "stuff a ballot box" by making up false names, using others names, (e.g. signing the petition on behalf of unaware third parties, like friends or family)

 

2. The petition may not have reached its intended audience. Did all the stakeholders really know about the petition? The pro-legalization groups, in my opinion, this site notwithstanding, haven't the same mechanisms and machinery in place to motivate people to sign, that the abolitionists have.

 

3. Privacy and security issues. Because certain aspects of this industry are still effectively "criminalized" and LE is still being somewhat pig-headed in its views and actions (pun intended) many people may not have wanted to express their opinion in this manner, (disclosing names and addresses for example). Also they may still sense the stigma of the industry and did not want others to see they supported it.

 

Those are just a few of the reasons. The petition shows that people have an opinion but it is not a statistically accurate way to predict the opinions or voting intentions of society.