Should lawmakers be outed?

[MightyPen 67414]

But is there never an exception? As people nevermind as a provider, ask yourself this: Generally speaking, if you were being made to submit to something - anything - without your consent (or you witnessed someone being subordinated without their expressed consent), would you at least try to stand up for yourself, or would you just let it happen?

...

 

If you can't bring yourself to supporting the outing of those clients who as politicians support bringing C-36 into force [then, what...] do nothing except just stand by and let this attack happen?

You raise interesting points TT. But...

 

a) You're right, there are exceptions to the "no outing" rule. For example, if a client is violent or thieving, an SP can report that person to the police as they would anyone else who committed a crime against them. Sure the client is "outed", but the client gave up the promise of anonymity once they committed their crime. Now, I can see how some people might conclude "well being a standard bearer for a law that endangers SPs is practically the same thing!" But... hypocrisy is not a crime, and in fact I think it's an understood part of the political game. And more importantly...

 

b) Between the two extremes of "expose the hypocrites!" and "do nothing", there's a WHOLE HOST of legal and ethical options for fighting this bill which are already being pursued. I think the court challenge after its passage is the ultimate remedy. The process of law is slow, but I think on this issue the system can be relied upon to fix this ridiculous situation. While we have these other options to pursue, I don't think attacking a clutch of hypocritical politicians (I'm shocked -- SHOCKED!) in what's effectively very public blackmail is justified.

 

Not to mention, I don't think it would accomplish anything. For my fuller thoughts on this, see my post on the subject from a few days ago: POST

[Two Thirty 1422]

Yes, I was referring to the notion that we should always act to minimize if not eliminate harm. I think we can all agree that C-36 is harmful. But as Mightypen points out, the difficulty is about what action to take.

 

The effect from sensationalizing something (someone) that would go with outing a federal Conservative Party politician would likely be shortlived, since that politician can always be isolated and replaced. And let's get real: What are the odds that a government of a different political stripe would repeal C-36 after it becomes law, or even try to amend it? That's why it needs to be fought somehow before it can become law.

 

Because as Mightypen also points out, a process is in place to challenge laws and have them changed. But that process is unreasonably long, especially considering the harm that can happen in the meantime.

[TheRiddlerMan 872]

Hypocritical politicians are just one of many categories of clients who might "deserve" to be outed. Once that Pandora's box is opened the only people who will suffer are the SPs, who will face even more distrust and suspicion on top of what this bill will lead to. It will do absolutely nothing to prevent the bill from passing - nothing can stop that now. We all simply have to adjust to the new reality of the industry.

[cat 262460]

Another aspect of this to be considered is that once the magazine is loaded and fired, it can never again be reloaded. The threat of outing is far more intimidating than the actual naming of names. For the multitudes that could be named, only a percentage will catch a bullet and the rest will breath a sign of relief, the threat will be pretty much over. It will be big new once and only once; subsequent outings will be observed but will have the "already been there, did that" reaction in the public eye. This could only be done once or twice, then it would lose it's power.

 

Our politicians are not rock stars, most people can't even name their MPs let alone recognize them on the street. The names would have to be so high up and relevant to todays government that the public immediately know who they are. I know who is in my blackbook, some are genuine power brokers in this country but Joe Public wouldn't know them at all. A few of them are elected officials, others are long term bureaucrats. None of these men would be recognized be anyone outside of the people who work on the Hill. The journalists would have a hay day researching these mens lives and terrorizing (I believe journalists are our homegrown terrorists!) the outed's loved ones gathering enough information to flesh out their characters to even make the public care enough to follow the story. By outing clients, the only winners are the media, everyone else loses...

 

cat

[Ackba263 167]

So its okay for the conservative polictician to break their own laws and go after us, un-affluent men for their own polictical purpose. If you want to bring the law down then do it to them, protecting the ones who brought in the law so they can have their cake and eat it, is pure hypocracy.

[Ice4fun 78396]

Easy Answer... NO

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

So its okay for the conservative polictician to break their own laws and go after us, un-affluent men for their own polictical purpose. If you want to bring the law down then do it to them, protecting the ones who brought in the law so they can have their cake and eat it, is pure hypocracy.

 

Of course they are hypocrites. However, I've been with very public figures. Sports guys, actors, politicians, judges, lawyers and cops.

 

I would never out any of them in a public forum. Even if they pissed me off.

 

My business depends on discretion. It goes both ways.

[waterrat 1261]

While the thought of "outing" those who voted for the bill that should not be named has appeal, I applaud the ladies who have said that they would not do so.

 

The hypocrisy of Conservative MP's should be no surprise. The Harper government has been guilty of hypocrisy since it was first elected. The solution is to vote them out of power this year.

 

Also be on the lookout for cars with Ontario plates starting with the letters MHC or SEN.

[LadiesFirst 848]

Outed no, educated.... Seems so.

How's the saying go?

"Careful of the toes you step on they could be connected to the hand that feeds you"

If you have contact with these lawmakers get them working for the good guys. I would expect that it is very difficult to support this industry publicly but maybe if they could have a good argument. Try to have them focus on the fiscal pocket book. Take Mary Jane, an industry also difficult to support publicly, that is until the story gets spun to cost of policing and lost revenues than, presto, things start happening.

 

Canada has had it's share of turmoil over the past number of months. Plummeting energy has shocked an industry and the families that comprise it, this lost production will spread to other connected industries. Our currency has lost about 20% of its value reflecting this. All the tax revenue from cigarettes is being vaporized by ecigs.

 

Sooner than later we Canadians should think of how we are going to pay for our standard of living for our ballooning costs for our aging retirees...

 

Let's take cigarettes and companionship, one kills, the one I can buy. Why not treat companionship as cigarette's? Let me buy it, charge me a tax, show me some graphic illustrations of what I can expect, and I'll be sure not to do it within 4 meters of doorways :)

 

I'm happy, government got 15%, and lady operates out of safe place....

[Johnny Canuck 5347]

Totally agree with you there. The unfortunate thing is that the law makers make up the status quo on the very same view of prostitution that has ben around since the dawn of ages.

 

So with that said, it is my opinion that law makers on this specific bill who have partaken the hobby should be outed. 100%

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

Totally agree with you there. The unfortunate thing is that the law makers make up the status quo on the very same view of prostitution that has ben around since the dawn of ages.

 

So with that said, it is my opinion that law makers on this specific bill who have partaken the hobby should be outed. 100%

 

I have a question. What if someone THINKS you had something to do with the laws, but you didn't. She outed you, then it comes out YOU have nothing to do with the laws. You've been outed, the damage is done. She says sorry, I thought you were someone else.

 

So now, do you feel the same way?

[Johnny Canuck 5347]

No I wouldn't feel the same way, however it is just my personal opinion as one of my biggest pet peeves are hypocrites as I am sure it is a pet peeve of many others. However, as we all know, one of the biggeat things in this industry and hobby is discretion so I guess no matter what it is it's always going to be a win lose scenario for one party.

[oldblueeyez 15475]

I believe that outing anybody on either side of this hobby is unethical and against the spirit of our activities. Outing government officials, while a titillating notion to entertain as they really do deserve it, could land the outer in "suicided" territory; they have the money, they have the power, unless you can guarantee yourself 150% anonymity, I would not tempt fate.

[Ice4fun 78396]

Outing for any reason except immediate personal safety is just not appropriate.

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Guest s******ecan****]

Discretion is a sacred covenant between provider and client and should be respected.

 

It wouldn't have made any difference in the end anyhow as the only result would have been the termination of a handful of political careers. MP's have no freedom to oppose the PMO's office so if threatened with "outing" they still would not have been in any position to prevent this odious law from becoming reality.

[Parker 19761]

Discretion is a sacred covenant between provider and client and should be respected.

 

 

This is so true. I wouldn't want to be publicly outed and take great steps to ensure privacy and discretion on both sides.

 

To out someone because of their job, even if they may have had a tiny part in the creation of a terribly dumb new law, seems like a total overreaction..

 

..and contrary to what some conservative mps think, I quite like my clients. I don't feel taken advantage of by them and I don't want anyone to try and "save me".. I probably wouldn't even out Ms. Smith if she paid for my services, though she'd probably be the most deserving of such, lol.

 

xx