Saturday, December 21, 2013
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Prostitution "Out of Business" REPORT
2730
http://files.efc-canada.net/si/Prostitution/Out%20of%20Business.pdf
EFC PROPOSES CANADA CRIMINALIZE PURCHASE OF SEX
December 11, 2013
OTTAWA – The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) has released a comprehensive report proposing reform to Canada’s prostitution laws entitled Out of Business: Prostitution in Canada – Putting an End to Demand.
www.theEfc.ca/OutOfBusiness
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
(613) 233-9868 x332
http://files.efc-canada.net/si/Prostitution/Out%20of%20Business.pdf
December 11, 2013
OTTAWA – The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) has released a comprehensive report proposing reform to Canada’s prostitution laws entitled Out of Business: Prostitution in Canada – Putting an End to Demand.
One of the EFC’s goals is the elimination of all forms of sexual exploitation in Canada. To that end, in Out of Business the EFC proposes a Canadian adaptation of the Nordic model of law and policy on prostitution.
“A change in law that criminalizes the purchase of sexual services will help reshape attitudes about prostitution, making a stronger statement that in Canada we will not tolerate or condone sexual exploitation,” says Don Hutchinson, EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel. “Still, more than that is needed to put an end to sexual exploitation, so in Out of Business we have adapted law and policies that have proven successful elsewhere to work within Canada’s constitutional requirements.”
Key recommendations include:
- Criminalize the purchase and attempted purchase of sex
- Maintain prohibitions against profiting from sexual exploitation
- Amend our laws to reflect the non-criminal nature of individuals who are being prostituted
- Invest in exit programs and support for prostituted persons
- Initiate a public awareness campaign to accompany such a change in the law.
The Nordic model, first enacted in Sweden in 1999, recognizes that the vast majority of prostituted persons are not prostituting willingly. It focuses on eliminating the demand for purchase of sexual services in an effort to abolish prostitution. Criminalizing the buyers, pimps and traffickers has proven successful in reducing rates of prostitution and sex trafficking and has been replicated in Norway and Iceland.
More than a decade of experience with the Nordic model has countries like The Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand rethinking their approach of legalization, decriminalization and efforts at regulation. Israel, Ireland and Scotland are taking steps toward laws targeting the purchase of sex. France’s Parliament voted last week in favour of proceeding with legislation that would impose strict fines on individuals who purchase or attempt to purchase sexual services.
“The Nordic model is one of the most coherent and successful prostitution policy models ever developed,” said Julia Beazley, policy analyst with the EFC. “It’s time we shift the focus of our laws toward those who exploit. There is no justice in laws that serve mainly to further victimize individuals who have been abused, marginalized or racialized. Nor is there justice in normalizing or legitimizing abuse and exploitation. We must be unambiguous in defining prostitution as a form of violence, abuse and control of vulnerable women, children and men.”Prostitution has never been illegal in Canada. What we have currently is an approach in which prostitution itself is legal, but virtually all activities surrounding it are not.
Three key provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code have been challenged in the courts and are awaiting a final decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. The provisions in question relate to operating a common bawdy house or brothel, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purposes of prostitution.
“Canadians have known for some time that our laws on prostitution are not working,” explains Hutchinson. “Despite three thorough government-initiated studies and reports since 1983, all agreeing that the status quo is unacceptable, our laws have remained unchanged. Now we have the experience of other countries, demonstrating what does and doesn’t work, on which to build. Regardless of the outcome at the Supreme Court, our laws and policies in this area are in need of change.”
Download Out of Business: Prostitution in Canada – Putting an End to Demand at www.theEfc.ca/OutOfBusiness
-30-
For more information or an interview contact:
Rick Hiemstra, Director of Media RelationsThe Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
(613) 233-9868 x332
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Human Trafficking - Connecting the Dots MP JOY SMITH
Human Trafficking - Connecting the Dots
VISIT
http://www.joysmith.ca/main.asp?fxoid=FXMenu%2C7&cat_ID=27&sub_ID=104
and some time ago Statement http://vimeo.com/37274955
Monday, November 25, 2013
Pro-life leaders defend their opposition to 1989 Mulroney-era abortion bill | LifeSiteNews.com
Pro-life leaders defend their opposition to 1989 Mulroney-era abortion bill | LifeSiteNews.com
TORONTO, November 22, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Recently declassified federal cabinet documents reveal why Canada’s pro-life movement vehemently opposed the Mulroney government’s 1989 Bill C-43 that proposed to re-criminalize abortion but would have, according to pro-lifers at the time, legally approved abortion on-demand.
"Bill C-43 was designed to help the aborting doctors and would not save unborn children,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), in a press release. “If it had passed as presented by Brian Mulroney’s government, abortion would have been legalized in Canada.”
To this day, Canada still has no law governing abortion. There is no so-called “right” to abortion, as abortion advocates claim, but simply a vacuum.
The Context
In 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the few remaining protections still afforded to unborn babies by the 1969 Liberal government’s “Omnibus Bill”. While keeping abortion as a criminal offense under Section 251 of the Criminal Code, Pierre Trudeau’s 1969 bill allowed a “therapeutic abortion committee” consisting of three doctors to approve the deadly procedure if "the continuation of pregnancy … would be likely to endanger the life or health of the mother."
Since the word “health” was not defined, in practice this resulted in abortion-on-demand. In the first year alone of the new law 11,152 children were killed through abortion. The numbers rapidly grew each year after that.
Section 251 of the Code was eventually struck down on procedural grounds in the 1988 Morgentaler Decision. The Supreme Court ruled that since the 1969 law was not applied equally across the country — which it said violated the Charter right to security of the person — it was unconstitutional. This left Canada without an abortion law, placing it alongside communist China.
Legally this meant that at the request of the mother, a child in the womb could be killed by a doctor during all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever. At the same time, however, the court encouraged Parliament to draft a new law if they chose to do so.
Replacement abortion law
In 1989 pro-abortion Conservative justice minister Kim Campbell, with the input of the government’s minister of health, Jake Epp, introduced Bill C-43 as the replacement abortion law.
Cabinet meeting minutes obtained by The Canadian Press show then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney consistently rejected input from cabinet heavyweights that would have offered at least some meaningful protections for unborn children in their mothers’ wombs.
Rejected proposals included: criminal penalties for women who deliberately killed their unborn children through self-abortion; a draft resolution that would have criminalized aborting malformed unborn children; and an amendment to stipulate that stress caused by an unwanted pregnancy should not be considered a health danger to the woman.
Declassified minutes reveal that Epp, a practicing Mennonite Christian, argued strongly against setting “arbitrary” dividing lines between stages of pregnancy.
Epp rejected the recommendations of a special ad hoc cabinet committee on abortion that recommended a two-stage law that would allow abortion up to around 28 weeks gestation, and only afterwards if the mother’s life was in danger. Epp’s one-stage approach to pregnancy ultimately made its way into Bill C-43.
Bill C-43 would add abortion back to the criminal code, making inducing abortion an indictable offense punishable by up to two years in prison, unless it was done “by or under the direction of a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that, if the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would likely be threatened.” “Health” was broadly defined to include a woman’s “physical, mental and psychological health.”
Pro-life leaders fight proposed law
Canada’s leading pro-life organizations, including Campaign Life Coalition, Alliance for Life Canada, and REAL Women, fought the bill, saying that it had enough exceptions and loopholes as to render it useless in protecting any unborn child from abortion.
Their concerns were not without just cause. Campbell reassured abortion doctors in an October 1990 10-page letter that they have “no need to fear” the proposed legislation since it had been specifically worded to prevent no abortions, while protecting doctors who committed them.
“The legislation is designed to protect a doctor from being convicted under the new law…[and] protect nurses and other medical staff acting under the doctor’s direction,” wrote Campbell. She made it clear that abortion doctors were explicitly protected under the proposed law since it legally recognized abortion as a “lawful medical procedure”.
Campbell praised the proposed law for its generous criteria under which doctors could perform abortions. “[Doctors may] take into consideration any matters which, in their opinion, are likely to adversely affect…the woman’s…health. These factors could include rape, incest, genetic defects and socio-economic factors. [...] For example, social factors and personal aspirations could be considered in relation to a determination of health.”
That the bill would do nothing to protect the unborn or curtail abortion was not lost on mainstream media. A November 1989 Montreal Gazette editorial stated: "the government has wholly ducked the rights of the fetus. The law does not even refer to fetal rights." At the same time, another editorial in The Globe and Mail claimed: "access to abortion will be easier and quicker under this Bill."
Pro-life Canadians were thus put in the dilemma of accepting what they saw as a duplicitous abortion on-demand bill, or no legislation at all.
Many realized that no matter what happened, Canada’s unborn children would have no victory.
“I recall that there was a huge amount of consultation among various pro-life groups and pro-life politicians,” said LifeSiteNews managing director Steve Jalsevac, a Campaign Life activist at the time. “It went on for a long time and no one person dominated the discussions. Every view was taken into consideration and in the end the strategy of opposing the bill, even though the pro-aborts were at the same time also strongly opposing the bill, was firmly agreed upon by the large majority of Canada's pro-life leaders and groups.”
Jalsevac said that any other decision would have been a “pragmatic compromise of essential principles that cannot be compromised.”
“What none of us expected, however, was how powerful the influence of some forces in Canada have been to this day, committed to never letting another law come forward on abortion,” he said. “Who could have anticipated that such a bizarre offense against democracy, reason and just plain common sense would have prevailed for so very long.”
Marilyn Bergeron, former president of Alliance for Life Canada and 2013 recipient of the LifeCanada Mother Teresa pro-life award, told LifeSiteNews that “after many many hours of discussion and much prayer, we took a stand against Bill C-43 because it would have enshrined into law the right to abortion.”
“We felt it was wrong to do that because the law is a great teacher. Essentially it would teach that there was a right to abortion under certain circumstances,” she explained.
Bergeron said that the bill created a wedge between mother and baby that kept on “being expanded to take the lives of more babies for different reasons.”
Instead of a law that offered no real protection to the unborn, Bergeron said pro-lifers “wanted to work towards a law that would protect all unborn children.”
Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, told LifeSiteNews that while the bill would have put the word “abortion” in the criminal code, it was “in fact abortion on-demand without restraints.”
“Abortion would be determined by a doctor and his ‘opinion’, and who would dispute his opinion? The bill would not have stopped abortions,” she said.
Landolt related how the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops took the position that adding abortion to the code would have at least provided some ground upon which to wage a legal war against it.
Bishop Robert Lebel, then-president of the CCCB, stated at the time that although the bill was “seriously flawed” it would have been better than a “legislative vacuum” since it would have confirmed that abortion is a matter of public morality and a criminal offense.
But many pro-life leaders took the position that the unborn would be served better by scrapping the bill and working towards a better law.
“It was a matter of political tactics,” said Landolt. “Who was right, who was wrong, I don’t know. But at the time pro-life leaders were crystal clear: we were not going to condone abortion on-demand.”
Hughes told LifeSiteNews that the proposed bill was in no way a compromise with pro-lifers by the government, but a “sellout” to the abortion industry. CLC took the position that a “bad law is worse than no law,” and decided to direct its efforts in campaigning for a new law that would not compromise on protecting the unborn. Through the intervention of the late Senator Dr. Stanley Haidasz, CLC made a delegation before the Senate to argue against the bill.
The bill was adopted by the House of Commons in May 1990 by a free vote of 140 to 131, but was ultimately defeated in the Senate in a tie vote of 43-43 in January 1991.
Of particular note, Rob Nicholson, who was then Campbell’s parliamentary secretary, voted against Bill C-43 on pro-life grounds. “I could not in good conscience give approval to something that I have always fought against in my life,” he said at the time. “I have fought for the protection of unborn children and I fought against the abortion law that was in place in Canada for many years.”
Since rejoining Parliament in 2004, in particular in his role as Justice Minister from 2007 to 2013, he has opposed all new legislative attempts to enact protections for the unborn.
Pro-life Victory
Pro-life leaders from around the country saw the bill’s defeat as a victory for the pro-life cause. Their reactions were reported by The Interim at the time.
Fr. Alphonse de Valk, founding editor of Catholic Insight magazine, called the bill’s defeat a victory for truth over the lie that the bill “struck a balance” between the mother and child.
Cecelia Forsyth, then-president of Saskatoon Pro-Life, stated about the bill’s defeat: “There’s a sense of relief…It’s much more difficult to change a bad law than to introduce a good law. We’re working for a good law.”
Michel Arsenault of Life Savers in Moncton, New Brunswick, called the defeat “rather nice.” “Now we can work towards a law that really will protect both mother and unborn child,” she said.
Dr. Andre LaFrance stated that the proposed law “would have done absolutely nothing to prevent even a single abortion.”
Anneliese Steden, a spokeswoman for Cambridge Right to Life, said that her organization was “hoping” Bill C-43 would be defeated because it was “paraded as a pro-life bill when it wasn’t. In our opinion we would be better off without a law and try to get a better law in the future.”
Rev. Ken Campbell, president of Choose Life Canada, stated: “We oppose the bill because it sought to institutionalize the killing of the innocent pre-born. It’s better to have no bill at all.”
To this day, Campaign Life Coalition, which describes itself as the political arm of Canada’s pro-life movement, will only support legislative initiatives for the unborn that adhere to the principle that the “life of every unborn child has the natural and fundamental right to protection in law.” The organization strongly supports incremental measures that uphold that principle, but does not support legislation that “arbitrarily divides humans into protected and unprotected classes.”
CLC continues to stand by what it stated in its delegation to the Senate against Bill C-43 more than two decades ago: “Life is a continuum. It is not measured in weeks, inches or pounds. A human being exists and is alive from the moment of conception [fertilization].”
“Abortion, at any time after conception, kills a developing human being.”
Since the defeat of Bill C-43 in the Senate, no government has touched the legal status of abortion, including the reigning Conservative Party under Stephen Harper, who has stated on numerous occasions that he will not allow the abortion issue to be reopened.
Canada’s unborn children, killed by the millions since 1969, still await some form of legal protection as suggested by the Supreme Court when it struck down Section 251 in 1988.
Pro-life leaders defend their opposition to 1989 Mulroney-era abortion bill
by Peter Baklinski
Fri Nov 22 1:17 PM EST
IT' S about 
"Bill C-43 was designed to help the aborting doctors and would not save unborn children,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), in a press release. “If it had passed as presented by Brian Mulroney’s government, abortion would have been legalized in Canada.”
To this day, Canada still has no law governing abortion. There is no so-called “right” to abortion, as abortion advocates claim, but simply a vacuum.
The Context
In 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the few remaining protections still afforded to unborn babies by the 1969 Liberal government’s “Omnibus Bill”. While keeping abortion as a criminal offense under Section 251 of the Criminal Code, Pierre Trudeau’s 1969 bill allowed a “therapeutic abortion committee” consisting of three doctors to approve the deadly procedure if "the continuation of pregnancy … would be likely to endanger the life or health of the mother."
Since the word “health” was not defined, in practice this resulted in abortion-on-demand. In the first year alone of the new law 11,152 children were killed through abortion. The numbers rapidly grew each year after that.
Section 251 of the Code was eventually struck down on procedural grounds in the 1988 Morgentaler Decision. The Supreme Court ruled that since the 1969 law was not applied equally across the country — which it said violated the Charter right to security of the person — it was unconstitutional. This left Canada without an abortion law, placing it alongside communist China.
Legally this meant that at the request of the mother, a child in the womb could be killed by a doctor during all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever. At the same time, however, the court encouraged Parliament to draft a new law if they chose to do so.
Replacement abortion law
In 1989 pro-abortion Conservative justice minister Kim Campbell, with the input of the government’s minister of health, Jake Epp, introduced Bill C-43 as the replacement abortion law.
Cabinet meeting minutes obtained by The Canadian Press show then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney consistently rejected input from cabinet heavyweights that would have offered at least some meaningful protections for unborn children in their mothers’ wombs.
Rejected proposals included: criminal penalties for women who deliberately killed their unborn children through self-abortion; a draft resolution that would have criminalized aborting malformed unborn children; and an amendment to stipulate that stress caused by an unwanted pregnancy should not be considered a health danger to the woman.
Declassified minutes reveal that Epp, a practicing Mennonite Christian, argued strongly against setting “arbitrary” dividing lines between stages of pregnancy.
Epp rejected the recommendations of a special ad hoc cabinet committee on abortion that recommended a two-stage law that would allow abortion up to around 28 weeks gestation, and only afterwards if the mother’s life was in danger. Epp’s one-stage approach to pregnancy ultimately made its way into Bill C-43.
Bill C-43 would add abortion back to the criminal code, making inducing abortion an indictable offense punishable by up to two years in prison, unless it was done “by or under the direction of a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that, if the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would likely be threatened.” “Health” was broadly defined to include a woman’s “physical, mental and psychological health.”
Pro-life leaders fight proposed law
Canada’s leading pro-life organizations, including Campaign Life Coalition, Alliance for Life Canada, and REAL Women, fought the bill, saying that it had enough exceptions and loopholes as to render it useless in protecting any unborn child from abortion.
Their concerns were not without just cause. Campbell reassured abortion doctors in an October 1990 10-page letter that they have “no need to fear” the proposed legislation since it had been specifically worded to prevent no abortions, while protecting doctors who committed them.
“The legislation is designed to protect a doctor from being convicted under the new law…[and] protect nurses and other medical staff acting under the doctor’s direction,” wrote Campbell. She made it clear that abortion doctors were explicitly protected under the proposed law since it legally recognized abortion as a “lawful medical procedure”.
Campbell praised the proposed law for its generous criteria under which doctors could perform abortions. “[Doctors may] take into consideration any matters which, in their opinion, are likely to adversely affect…the woman’s…health. These factors could include rape, incest, genetic defects and socio-economic factors. [...] For example, social factors and personal aspirations could be considered in relation to a determination of health.”
That the bill would do nothing to protect the unborn or curtail abortion was not lost on mainstream media. A November 1989 Montreal Gazette editorial stated: "the government has wholly ducked the rights of the fetus. The law does not even refer to fetal rights." At the same time, another editorial in The Globe and Mail claimed: "access to abortion will be easier and quicker under this Bill."
Pro-life Canadians were thus put in the dilemma of accepting what they saw as a duplicitous abortion on-demand bill, or no legislation at all.
Many realized that no matter what happened, Canada’s unborn children would have no victory.
“I recall that there was a huge amount of consultation among various pro-life groups and pro-life politicians,” said LifeSiteNews managing director Steve Jalsevac, a Campaign Life activist at the time. “It went on for a long time and no one person dominated the discussions. Every view was taken into consideration and in the end the strategy of opposing the bill, even though the pro-aborts were at the same time also strongly opposing the bill, was firmly agreed upon by the large majority of Canada's pro-life leaders and groups.”
Jalsevac said that any other decision would have been a “pragmatic compromise of essential principles that cannot be compromised.”
“What none of us expected, however, was how powerful the influence of some forces in Canada have been to this day, committed to never letting another law come forward on abortion,” he said. “Who could have anticipated that such a bizarre offense against democracy, reason and just plain common sense would have prevailed for so very long.”
Marilyn Bergeron, former president of Alliance for Life Canada and 2013 recipient of the LifeCanada Mother Teresa pro-life award, told LifeSiteNews that “after many many hours of discussion and much prayer, we took a stand against Bill C-43 because it would have enshrined into law the right to abortion.”
“We felt it was wrong to do that because the law is a great teacher. Essentially it would teach that there was a right to abortion under certain circumstances,” she explained.
Bergeron said that the bill created a wedge between mother and baby that kept on “being expanded to take the lives of more babies for different reasons.”
Instead of a law that offered no real protection to the unborn, Bergeron said pro-lifers “wanted to work towards a law that would protect all unborn children.”
Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, told LifeSiteNews that while the bill would have put the word “abortion” in the criminal code, it was “in fact abortion on-demand without restraints.”
“Abortion would be determined by a doctor and his ‘opinion’, and who would dispute his opinion? The bill would not have stopped abortions,” she said.
Landolt related how the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops took the position that adding abortion to the code would have at least provided some ground upon which to wage a legal war against it.
Bishop Robert Lebel, then-president of the CCCB, stated at the time that although the bill was “seriously flawed” it would have been better than a “legislative vacuum” since it would have confirmed that abortion is a matter of public morality and a criminal offense.
But many pro-life leaders took the position that the unborn would be served better by scrapping the bill and working towards a better law.
“It was a matter of political tactics,” said Landolt. “Who was right, who was wrong, I don’t know. But at the time pro-life leaders were crystal clear: we were not going to condone abortion on-demand.”
Hughes told LifeSiteNews that the proposed bill was in no way a compromise with pro-lifers by the government, but a “sellout” to the abortion industry. CLC took the position that a “bad law is worse than no law,” and decided to direct its efforts in campaigning for a new law that would not compromise on protecting the unborn. Through the intervention of the late Senator Dr. Stanley Haidasz, CLC made a delegation before the Senate to argue against the bill.
The bill was adopted by the House of Commons in May 1990 by a free vote of 140 to 131, but was ultimately defeated in the Senate in a tie vote of 43-43 in January 1991.
Of particular note, Rob Nicholson, who was then Campbell’s parliamentary secretary, voted against Bill C-43 on pro-life grounds. “I could not in good conscience give approval to something that I have always fought against in my life,” he said at the time. “I have fought for the protection of unborn children and I fought against the abortion law that was in place in Canada for many years.”
Since rejoining Parliament in 2004, in particular in his role as Justice Minister from 2007 to 2013, he has opposed all new legislative attempts to enact protections for the unborn.
Pro-life Victory
Pro-life leaders from around the country saw the bill’s defeat as a victory for the pro-life cause. Their reactions were reported by The Interim at the time.
Fr. Alphonse de Valk, founding editor of Catholic Insight magazine, called the bill’s defeat a victory for truth over the lie that the bill “struck a balance” between the mother and child.
Cecelia Forsyth, then-president of Saskatoon Pro-Life, stated about the bill’s defeat: “There’s a sense of relief…It’s much more difficult to change a bad law than to introduce a good law. We’re working for a good law.”
Michel Arsenault of Life Savers in Moncton, New Brunswick, called the defeat “rather nice.” “Now we can work towards a law that really will protect both mother and unborn child,” she said.
Dr. Andre LaFrance stated that the proposed law “would have done absolutely nothing to prevent even a single abortion.”
Anneliese Steden, a spokeswoman for Cambridge Right to Life, said that her organization was “hoping” Bill C-43 would be defeated because it was “paraded as a pro-life bill when it wasn’t. In our opinion we would be better off without a law and try to get a better law in the future.”
Rev. Ken Campbell, president of Choose Life Canada, stated: “We oppose the bill because it sought to institutionalize the killing of the innocent pre-born. It’s better to have no bill at all.”
To this day, Campaign Life Coalition, which describes itself as the political arm of Canada’s pro-life movement, will only support legislative initiatives for the unborn that adhere to the principle that the “life of every unborn child has the natural and fundamental right to protection in law.” The organization strongly supports incremental measures that uphold that principle, but does not support legislation that “arbitrarily divides humans into protected and unprotected classes.”
CLC continues to stand by what it stated in its delegation to the Senate against Bill C-43 more than two decades ago: “Life is a continuum. It is not measured in weeks, inches or pounds. A human being exists and is alive from the moment of conception [fertilization].”
“Abortion, at any time after conception, kills a developing human being.”
Since the defeat of Bill C-43 in the Senate, no government has touched the legal status of abortion, including the reigning Conservative Party under Stephen Harper, who has stated on numerous occasions that he will not allow the abortion issue to be reopened.
Canada’s unborn children, killed by the millions since 1969, still await some form of legal protection as suggested by the Supreme Court when it struck down Section 251 in 1988.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
PEI guide for parents: ‘healthy’ for kids to masturbate, touch genitals of ‘familiar adults’
2400 2525 n 20
See arcticle below my comment:
Who writes, pays, pushes those guides...
Pedophiles and other deranged ADULTS ....oh! or is this the new norm ...
Where have I been.
Beware the Predators are OUT!... to get our Children........
IF WE are Sleeping while this is happening ... we will never wake UP....
We slept through the abortion issue 1969....We slept throught the Marriage issue 2000....we are now sleeping throught the Euthanasias issue and the Quebec Values issue ...2013.
What will it take to WAKE us up....NOW!
Now are children's innocence is being violently (raped)...and we are dozing ... asleep at the switch.....and the pedophiles want the Rright to claim our children.....2013
and the Charter of Rights 1982 (JUDGES) will let them have it.....
and we ......WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO sleep?
ya sleep is good ....
We all have stories of our first sexual awakening....some came naturaly and were good ...some came from peers...others from parents ...others from friends and friends of our parents ...some from trusted people ...baby sitters , police officers .. pastors, teachers and some from predators.....I better stop here ...and let you..say your say.
Oh ! and check out the guide: http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/CSA_Healthy.pdf
Article from www.LNS.ca
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pei-guide-for-parents-healthy-for-kids-to-masturbate-touch-genitals-of-fami
PEI guide for parents: ‘healthy’ for kids to masturbate, touch genitals of ‘familiar adults’
by Peter Baklinski
Tue Nov 12 6:11 PM EST
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, November 12, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new guide from the government of P.E.I. is telling parents that it is “natural and healthy” for young children to “touch the ‘private parts’ of familiar adults” and to look at “nude pictures on the Internet, videos, magazines”. Parents are also being told that they should not discourage their children from masturbating.
“This is not only inappropriate, but destructive,” said Gwen Landolt, National Vice-President of REAL Women of Canada, to LifeSiteNews.com.
The 7-page guide, titled “Children’s Sexual Behaviours: A Parent’s Guide”, put out by the Provincial Child Sexual Abuse Advisory Committee, provides a standard for what experts consider normal sexual behaviour in children from preschool to grade four.
"Natural and Healthy" behavours for children up to age five include:
- "Touches the 'private parts' of familiar adults and children with hand or body."
- "Puts something in own genitals or rectum one time for curiosity or exploration."
- “Plays ‘doctor’ inspecting others’ bodies, including ‘private parts .’”
"Natural and Healthy" behavours for children up to grade four include:
- "Plays 'doctor'. The child inspects another child’s body, including 'private parts'.”
- "Shows others his/her genitals in a private location."
- "Plays games with same-aged children related to sex and sexuality."
- Pretends to be opposite gender.
- "Wants to compare genitals with peer-aged friends."
- "Looks at nude pictures on the Internet, videos, magazines, etc."
Following similar directives put out by abortion giant Planned Parenthood, the guidelines tell parents that although they may “feel uncomfortable” to discover their child “engaging in sexual behaviour,” it is “important not to overreact, shame, embarrass, or discipline the child.”
The experts state that a child should not be discouraged from masturbating and “should not be told that it is 'bad,' 'dirty,' or 'nasty’”.
“It is important to keep in mind that there are no absolutes,” the guidelines state. “Normal, healthy behaviour covers a wide range and may not be expressed the same, or to the same extent, in every child.”
“I don’t know what ‘children’ they are referring to, but no normal children do these things at those age groups,” said Landolt who is a lawyer, mother of five children, and grandmother of nine.
Landolt called the guidelines “permissive” and said that parents operating by them will only encourage their children to become “sexually involved at a prepubescent age.”
“It sets them on a dangerous journey when they are not ready for it,” she said.
The guidelines cite studies by the late William N. Friedrich, a Canadian child-abuse researcher, and Toni Cavanagh Johnson, Ph.D., regarded as an expert in the field of children’s sexual development.
The pamphlet's advice bears echoes of the views of the 1940-50s researcher Alfred Kinsey, a controversial and highly influential figure considered by many as the “father of the sexual revolution,” who claimed that his research found that infants were sexual. While Kinsey is still widely cited and used in many circles, researcher Judith Reisman famously exposed his abhorrent research methods, which included sexually molesting babies as young as five months old to collect data on children’s “orgasms.”
Pointing to the guideline about adults allowing children to “touch” their “private parts”, Landolt called it a “diabolic attempt” to make children “vulnerable to sexual activity” and “acquiesce to sexual acts of adults.”
Landolt said that P.E.I parents should be outraged that their tax dollars were used to fund a guide that promotes a “misleading destructive journey” for children.
The guide will be stocked at family resource and healthcare centres across the province.
Contact info:
Premier Hon. Robert W.J. Ghiz
Fifth Floor South
Shaw Building
95 Rochford Street
P.O. Box 2000,
Charlottetown, PE C1A 7N8
Phone: (902) 368-4400
Email: premier@gov.pe.ca
“This is not only inappropriate, but destructive,” said Gwen Landolt, National Vice-President of REAL Women of Canada, to LifeSiteNews.com.
The 7-page guide, titled “Children’s Sexual Behaviours: A Parent’s Guide”, put out by the Provincial Child Sexual Abuse Advisory Committee, provides a standard for what experts consider normal sexual behaviour in children from preschool to grade four.
- "Touches the 'private parts' of familiar adults and children with hand or body."
- "Puts something in own genitals or rectum one time for curiosity or exploration."
- “Plays ‘doctor’ inspecting others’ bodies, including ‘private parts .’”
"Natural and Healthy" behavours for children up to grade four include:
- "Plays 'doctor'. The child inspects another child’s body, including 'private parts'.”
- "Shows others his/her genitals in a private location."
- "Plays games with same-aged children related to sex and sexuality."
- Pretends to be opposite gender.
- "Wants to compare genitals with peer-aged friends."
- "Looks at nude pictures on the Internet, videos, magazines, etc."
Following similar directives put out by abortion giant Planned Parenthood, the guidelines tell parents that although they may “feel uncomfortable” to discover their child “engaging in sexual behaviour,” it is “important not to overreact, shame, embarrass, or discipline the child.”
The experts state that a child should not be discouraged from masturbating and “should not be told that it is 'bad,' 'dirty,' or 'nasty’”.
“It is important to keep in mind that there are no absolutes,” the guidelines state. “Normal, healthy behaviour covers a wide range and may not be expressed the same, or to the same extent, in every child.”
“I don’t know what ‘children’ they are referring to, but no normal children do these things at those age groups,” said Landolt who is a lawyer, mother of five children, and grandmother of nine.
Landolt called the guidelines “permissive” and said that parents operating by them will only encourage their children to become “sexually involved at a prepubescent age.”
“It sets them on a dangerous journey when they are not ready for it,” she said.
The guidelines cite studies by the late William N. Friedrich, a Canadian child-abuse researcher, and Toni Cavanagh Johnson, Ph.D., regarded as an expert in the field of children’s sexual development.
The pamphlet's advice bears echoes of the views of the 1940-50s researcher Alfred Kinsey, a controversial and highly influential figure considered by many as the “father of the sexual revolution,” who claimed that his research found that infants were sexual. While Kinsey is still widely cited and used in many circles, researcher Judith Reisman famously exposed his abhorrent research methods, which included sexually molesting babies as young as five months old to collect data on children’s “orgasms.”
Pointing to the guideline about adults allowing children to “touch” their “private parts”, Landolt called it a “diabolic attempt” to make children “vulnerable to sexual activity” and “acquiesce to sexual acts of adults.”
Landolt said that P.E.I parents should be outraged that their tax dollars were used to fund a guide that promotes a “misleading destructive journey” for children.
The guide will be stocked at family resource and healthcare centres across the province.
Contact info:
Premier Hon. Robert W.J. Ghiz
Fifth Floor South
Shaw Building
95 Rochford Street
P.O. Box 2000,
Charlottetown, PE C1A 7N8
Phone: (902) 368-4400
Email: premier@gov.pe.ca
MORE
and http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-anarchy-the-kinsey-legacy
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
MUST LISTEN : PORN Generation Porn and violence against Women
Name Porn defenders in comments below. 2300
WHO are they according to YOU, what do you think?
Who runs the PORN industry?
Are feminist defenders of porn?
I have a lots of questions...
See CBS report on Ideas: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas MUST LISTEN
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2013/10/21/generation-porn-1/
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2413285538
WHO are they according to YOU, what do you think?
Who runs the PORN industry?
Are feminist defenders of porn?
I have a lots of questions...
See CBS report on Ideas: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas MUST LISTEN
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2013/10/21/generation-porn-1/
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2413285538
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Guangdong Woman Breaks Silence on Forced Abortion at Nine Months
At Nine Months
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=1335
Here is Reggie Littlejohn while in Ottawa last May. 2160
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=1335
Here is Reggie Littlejohn while in Ottawa last May. 2160
Monday, August 19, 2013
3.8 million Human Embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2% COST??? Social, Economic, Ethical, Moral...more questions
3.2%
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/3.8-million-human-embryos-created-to-produce-122000-live-births-success-rat
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/3.8-million-human-embryos-created-to-produce-122000-live-births-success-rat
by Peter Saunders 2138
Mon Aug 19 9:15 AM EST
August 18, 2013 ( PJ Saunders) -
The Daily Telegraph this weekend reports on a new expert study which has raised fears that some clinics may be offering techniques that put the embryo at risk for their own profit.
The review, carried out by Dr Justin McCracken, the former head of the Health Protection Agency, highlighted a new technique, known as Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS), as one which is possibly being offered inappropriately for commercial reasons.
For a fee, which can run into thousands of pounds, clinics can check embryos created by a successful IVF cycle for certain genetic abnormalities and only implant those that appear normal.
The process is becoming especially popular for older couples seeking IVF, because embryos created from their sperm and eggs have a higher chance of abnormalities. As it involves the removal of a cell from an embryo (see picture) it carries some risk for the embryo being tested.
Dr McCracken said the jury was still out on whether PGS improves the chances of having a baby and warned there is a risk of harm to the foetus. He said it was vital that the regulator checks that clinics are not simply recommending it to boost profits.
‘I understand that there is no clinical consensus regarding its efficacy, but there is a real risk to the embryo in carrying it out.’ (emphasis mine)
This is a somewhat curious statement. Dr McCracken seems (appropriately) concerned about the risk of damage to a few hundred embryos each year undergoing PGS.
But he is curiously silent (or perhaps unaware) that over three million embryos have perished or been deliberately destroyed since 1990 as a result of procedures made legal by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.
Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Alton recently asked in parliament how many embryos have been created in each year since the commencement of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and how many of these have resulted in live births.
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!
Figures given in reply by the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health Earl Howe showed that 3,806,699 embryos have been created since 1990. Between 1992 and 2006 a total of 122,043 live births occurred according to figures from the HFEA given alongside his reply (see also here).
122,043 live births from 3,806,699 embryos represent a success rate of 3.21%. Or, to put it another way, 3,684,656 embryos never made it to birth.
These figures make McCracken’s concern about PGS embryos alone look like what Jesus called ‘straining a gnat whilst swallowing a camel’ (Matthew 23:23-24).
In a letter to the Telegraph, as yet unpublished, disability rights advocate Ann Farmer has highlighted the fact that, in addition to the vast wastage of embryos, some women have also died from complications of infertility treatments such as OHSS. She comments:
‘The whole point of the infertility industry is to manufacture babies out of embryos… A car factory that managed to accumulate 3,684,656 surplus models between 1990 and 2012 and in addition killed some of its customers would surely have gone out of business long ago.’
In 1948 the World Medical Association adopted the Declaration of Geneva which included the affirmation, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even against threat’.
Today’s doctors, it seems, take a contrary view.
If you agree with today’s doctors that early human life can be treated as a disposable commodity then the figures that Lord Alton has uncovered (not much short of the current population of New Zealand!) will probably not bother you much at all.
But if, like me, you believe that they are special creations made in God’s image, which should be granted respect, wonder, empathy and protection you will no doubt be very concerned indeed.
Reprinted with permission from PJ Saunders
Thursday, August 15, 2013
As long as there is breath in my body...
Hannah Rose Allen
I aborted my son, but I will be his voice as long as there is breath in my body
Very Informative article (clik)
2020About Hannah Rose http://www.roseandherlily.com/
Hannah Rose Allen is a Christian young woman passionate about the pro-life message. Through her own experience with unplanned pregnancy, abortion and the loss of a child, Hannah Rose has become a pro-life advocate dedicated to ministering the love of Jesus to others. She tells her unique and compelling story on her website, roseandherlily.com, as well as on other websites and news sources. She dreams of one day writing a book about her experiences. Hannah Rose speaks at banquets and pro-life events, churches, and college campuses. She is pursuing her Bachelor of Science in Psychology with a specialization in Crisis Counseling through Liberty University Online. Hannah Rose resides with her family in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she volunteers at her local Pregnancy Resource Center and works as a nanny.
Hannah Rose would love to hear from you!
You can reach her by email at roseandherlily@gmail.com
To view Hannah Rose's speaking schedule, click here. She would be honored to speak at your event!
For media, click here. She is available for all sorts of media requests.
Hannah Rose would love to hear from you!
You can reach her by email at roseandherlily@gmail.com
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Don’t ignore the real issue on prostitution
1817 1923 j7
by Julia Beazley:
Last week, an article in these pages (Legalize the Sex Trade, Kate Shannon and Sandra Ka Hon Chu, June 11), saw the authors declare that “the science is unequivocal: criminalization of sex work in Canada, and globally, has been an abject failure in protecting sex workers from violence, predation and murder.” While I might question which particular scientific studies the authors were referring to, I don’t disagree that the laws have failed to protect. The criminalization of sex work — more specifically, of people who are being prostituted — has indeed failed
Canada’s existing laws have proven ineffective at discouraging prostitution and protecting women. But the evidence is unequivocal that decriminalization or legalization of prostitution has been a greater failure. Countries that have legalized prostitution have found it neither provides more control over criminal behaviour nor offers greater protection for women from violence. It has also led to increased rates of sex trafficking.
The only model of law that has proven effective is the so-called “Nordic” model, first enacted in Sweden more than a decade ago. This model recognizes the vast majority of prostituted persons are not for sale by choice. Sweden’s law focuses its punitive powers on the johns, the pimps and the traffickers.
Swedish legislators started from the premise that prostitution is only and ever a form of sexual violence and exploitation of vulnerable women, men and children. Rather than try to manage or control prostitution, they determined to abolish it, establishing legal and social measures that take aim at the roots of sexual exploitation. Under this model, prostituted persons are decriminalized and those who purchase sexual services are criminalized; with fines geared to income and possible imprisonment. It has proven to be the most successful prostitution policy developed in a democratic society; and has been replicated in Norway, Iceland and is in various stages of consideration in France, Israel and Ireland. Targeting the demand has been demonstrated to be the most effective means of reducing rates of prostitution and sex trafficking.
Why is this? Because the violence experienced by women in prostitution is not rooted in the laws on paper, or in how they stand up to a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The violence directed at women in prostitution is rooted in the demand for paid access to women’s bodies — and the fundamental inequality that underlies this sense of entitlement.
The reality too often ignored in debate over which laws are best is that prostitution itself is inherently dangerous. It’s not the laws that endanger women in prostitution. It’s not the street corners or the alleyways that prey on, rape, assault and murder women. It’s the pimps, traffickers and buyers whose disrespect and devaluation of those women goes unchecked. To suggest that if prostituted women had time to make better choices about which customers to accept, or to negotiate the price and acts they will perform, they would be less subject to violence, is to put the responsibility for reducing violence squarely on the wrong shoulders.
The violence is rooted in the underlying view among the people, mostly men, that purchase them that women in prostitution are somehow fundamentally different from their mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives and daughters. This misperception justifies treatment of women as objects to be bought and sold. The very existence of prostitution requires a subclass of people who are available to be bought, sold and rented; people understood to be somehow just a little less equal than everyone else. The Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia have discovered that legalizing prostitution does not change this.
A key to the success experienced in Sweden is a public awareness campaign that accompanied the change in law. Children are taught in school from a young age that the purchase of sex is not just illegal, it’s unacceptable; it’s violence against women, and contrary to gender equality. This may be the most effective in the long run, because children are growing up with a different understanding of what respect between the sexes means.
If we truly want to stop the violence experienced by women in prostitution — and I believe we all agree at least on that point — let’s do as Sweden did, and tackle the problem at its roots.
National Post
Julia Beazley is a Policy Analyst with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
by Julia Beazley:
Last week, an article in these pages (Legalize the Sex Trade, Kate Shannon and Sandra Ka Hon Chu, June 11), saw the authors declare that “the science is unequivocal: criminalization of sex work in Canada, and globally, has been an abject failure in protecting sex workers from violence, predation and murder.” While I might question which particular scientific studies the authors were referring to, I don’t disagree that the laws have failed to protect. The criminalization of sex work — more specifically, of people who are being prostituted — has indeed failed
Canada’s existing laws have proven ineffective at discouraging prostitution and protecting women. But the evidence is unequivocal that decriminalization or legalization of prostitution has been a greater failure. Countries that have legalized prostitution have found it neither provides more control over criminal behaviour nor offers greater protection for women from violence. It has also led to increased rates of sex trafficking.
The only model of law that has proven effective is the so-called “Nordic” model, first enacted in Sweden more than a decade ago. This model recognizes the vast majority of prostituted persons are not for sale by choice. Sweden’s law focuses its punitive powers on the johns, the pimps and the traffickers.
Swedish legislators started from the premise that prostitution is only and ever a form of sexual violence and exploitation of vulnerable women, men and children. Rather than try to manage or control prostitution, they determined to abolish it, establishing legal and social measures that take aim at the roots of sexual exploitation. Under this model, prostituted persons are decriminalized and those who purchase sexual services are criminalized; with fines geared to income and possible imprisonment. It has proven to be the most successful prostitution policy developed in a democratic society; and has been replicated in Norway, Iceland and is in various stages of consideration in France, Israel and Ireland. Targeting the demand has been demonstrated to be the most effective means of reducing rates of prostitution and sex trafficking.
Why is this? Because the violence experienced by women in prostitution is not rooted in the laws on paper, or in how they stand up to a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The violence directed at women in prostitution is rooted in the demand for paid access to women’s bodies — and the fundamental inequality that underlies this sense of entitlement.
The reality too often ignored in debate over which laws are best is that prostitution itself is inherently dangerous. It’s not the laws that endanger women in prostitution. It’s not the street corners or the alleyways that prey on, rape, assault and murder women. It’s the pimps, traffickers and buyers whose disrespect and devaluation of those women goes unchecked. To suggest that if prostituted women had time to make better choices about which customers to accept, or to negotiate the price and acts they will perform, they would be less subject to violence, is to put the responsibility for reducing violence squarely on the wrong shoulders.
In Sweden, children are taught in school from a young age that the purchase of sex is not just illegal, it’s unacceptable; it’s violence against women, and contrary to gender equality
The violence is rooted in the underlying view among the people, mostly men, that purchase them that women in prostitution are somehow fundamentally different from their mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives and daughters. This misperception justifies treatment of women as objects to be bought and sold. The very existence of prostitution requires a subclass of people who are available to be bought, sold and rented; people understood to be somehow just a little less equal than everyone else. The Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia have discovered that legalizing prostitution does not change this.
A key to the success experienced in Sweden is a public awareness campaign that accompanied the change in law. Children are taught in school from a young age that the purchase of sex is not just illegal, it’s unacceptable; it’s violence against women, and contrary to gender equality. This may be the most effective in the long run, because children are growing up with a different understanding of what respect between the sexes means.
If we truly want to stop the violence experienced by women in prostitution — and I believe we all agree at least on that point — let’s do as Sweden did, and tackle the problem at its roots.
National Post
Julia Beazley is a Policy Analyst with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
a Little Entertainment from Space... Chris Hatfield a Canadian in Space ...
Bowieing it all out.. COMMANDER
Sunday, May 12, 2013
HAPPY Mothers Day to Mothers Daughters and Mothers to be...
Click the link for a beautiful video....
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQtwIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fnews%2Finsight%2F2013%2F05%2F11%2Fmothers_day_a_new_mom_celebrates_with_her_little_benjamin_buttons.html&ei=ZYyPUZ3rCNSdqQHv7YDQDA&usg=AFQjCNFlcBD5UmIsE2ojH6DHqgyzvRyuYw&bvm=bv.46340616,d.aWM
1545
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQtwIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fnews%2Finsight%2F2013%2F05%2F11%2Fmothers_day_a_new_mom_celebrates_with_her_little_benjamin_buttons.html&ei=ZYyPUZ3rCNSdqQHv7YDQDA&usg=AFQjCNFlcBD5UmIsE2ojH6DHqgyzvRyuYw&bvm=bv.46340616,d.aWM
1545Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Stop Forced Abortion -- China's One Child Policy --
4 minutes to understand the issue 4 minutes
1330 1457 A14
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/?nav=stop-forced-abortion
Sunday, March 31, 2013
ABOUT SURVIVING-PROSTITUTION-HUMAN-TRAFFICKING
1260
Why Ireland Needs the Criminalisation of Demand
http://wp.me/p3lbyl-2 via @wordpressdotcom
also see
http://secretlifeofamanhattancallgirl.wordpress.com/
There are many reasons why women find themselves in prostitution and all of them have nothing to do with feeling empowered, and even if they did feel delusionally empowered, I don’t care if she is offering herself up in a gold bikini on a silver platter in the pent house suite of the Berkeley Court Hotel, no one actually has the right to buy her, period!!
Rape does become part of the job, so much so that we don’t really use the term rape, we don’t have permission to, we might allude to it but then its ignored and the subject is changed. Many become desensitised to the pain of others, because if you knowledge someone else’s pain, you may just have to acknowledge your own, and we don’t have anywhere to place or deal with that pain, so some bury it, some use substances to forget it, some disconnect from it and unfortunately some accept it as routine.
I often wonder what people would be saying if they were breaking our bones, because to be honest with you I’d rather be writing this with a few healed bones than half the crap I have to live with in my head. If the offenders were breaking our bones, would the pro-prostitution lobby be fighting for stronger crutches to hold us up while we work? – water resistant plaster casts, support heists in the brothel beds, etc? Rape is an invisible violent crime, so how do people view the rape of a prostituted woman? – And I’m not looking for an answer; I unfortunately already know.
People ask me how many men, I was bought by 4-5 offenders, 2-3 nights a week, at least 45 weeks of the year for 6yrs and that is an equation I will never do in my head. I’m a survivor of a vicious gang rape, an attack which my friend did not survive and I have never seen the world the same way since. I was no “sex worker”, I was a trapped mind who lived in a body that no longer belonged to me, in fact I was a disconnected, drug addicted, walking rape victim, we all were.
Some may say that we will never end prostitution, well that doesn’t mean that we do nothing either, unfortunately in this world there will always be people willing to exploit the vulnerable, to make profit off the bodies of other human beings because nobody, not even the most equal societies in the world have found the cure for the human condition and all its complexities. You can pull the plug on technology, you can open more safe houses and instil support systems but it is only legislation that curbs human behaviour; that is in fact why the justice system exists in the first place. And when a man makes a conscious decision to go out and purchase the body of another human being to do with it what he wants, that is unacceptable human behaviour. We should never be bound by history, Ireland should know this more than most, for history is a series of processes through which humanity must be found and on this issue it is so long overdue and I for one, have had enough.
In the last 3yrs alone 29 children have been rescued from sexual slavery in Ireland, where do you think the children are kept? They are raped and abused in the same brothels as the adults, so I ask you, who pay’s the ultimate price under tolerating regimes? This is not acceptable to me, this should not be acceptable to anyone and on that basis alone prostitution should be outlawed.
Legislation should always reflect the values of a country, at the moment bodily integrity is not valued in Ireland even though the protection of bodily integrity is enshrined in our constitution and gender equality is not possible while women are up for sale, we will never stand shoulder to shoulder with our male counterparts so long as it is still acceptable for us to be on our knees or backs at their mercy.
At the moment our country is also debating marriage and how much we value it and who is entitled to that right, but at the same time we have a system where by it is acceptable for offenders to make a complete mockery of the commitments they made, because although I wasn’t counting wedding rings, I would agree that up to 60-70% of offenders are married or in committed relationships, I have always believed that these women have a right to know, they have a right to know what goes on in the back seat of the car, the very car they might be bringing the children to school in the next morning. The commitments these women have made must be valued and treated with integrity the opposite of which is hypocrisy and this hypocrisy must end.
The sex industry is both a cruel and disturbing place, run by criminals and all efforts must be made to bring it to its knees and the only way to do that is to cut off what makes it exist in the first place, the offenders, men who believe they have a right to buy other human beings. I want legislation that will fine offenders, jail the real pimps and coercers and send a clear message out to the traffickers to start packing and get the hell off our island because women are no longer for sale.
Mia De Faoite
Why Ireland Needs the Criminalisation of Demand
http://wp.me/p3lbyl-2 via @wordpressdotcom
also see
http://secretlifeofamanhattancallgirl.wordpress.com/
Prostitution – the purchase of another human being for sex, is not and never has been the purchase of sex, because neither I nor any of the other women stand on the street or in the brothels with our genitalia and our mouths and throats in neatly wrapped packages which you could borrow and return to us in 20mins. No, I had go with them, you had to talk to me first, my mind was present the whole time. You always have to buy the person before you gain access to their body. So you must ask yourself one question, Do you believe that people have the right to buy other human beings?
When I ask anyone this question, of course they say No but when I ask them Do you believe that people have the right to buy other human beings for the purpose of their own sexual gratification?, they sometimes hesitate, I understand where this hesitation comes from, because they think “well if they are offering it”, what’s the problem, two consenting adults, a business transaction!! I say no, this question requires a yes/no answer, you either believe it or you don’t, end of. I stood on that street selling myself but I always knew they had no right to buy me.
There are many reasons why women find themselves in prostitution and all of them have nothing to do with feeling empowered, and even if they did feel delusionally empowered, I don’t care if she is offering herself up in a gold bikini on a silver platter in the pent house suite of the Berkeley Court Hotel, no one actually has the right to buy her, period!!
Rape does become part of the job, so much so that we don’t really use the term rape, we don’t have permission to, we might allude to it but then its ignored and the subject is changed. Many become desensitised to the pain of others, because if you knowledge someone else’s pain, you may just have to acknowledge your own, and we don’t have anywhere to place or deal with that pain, so some bury it, some use substances to forget it, some disconnect from it and unfortunately some accept it as routine.
I often wonder what people would be saying if they were breaking our bones, because to be honest with you I’d rather be writing this with a few healed bones than half the crap I have to live with in my head. If the offenders were breaking our bones, would the pro-prostitution lobby be fighting for stronger crutches to hold us up while we work? – water resistant plaster casts, support heists in the brothel beds, etc? Rape is an invisible violent crime, so how do people view the rape of a prostituted woman? – And I’m not looking for an answer; I unfortunately already know.
People ask me how many men, I was bought by 4-5 offenders, 2-3 nights a week, at least 45 weeks of the year for 6yrs and that is an equation I will never do in my head. I’m a survivor of a vicious gang rape, an attack which my friend did not survive and I have never seen the world the same way since. I was no “sex worker”, I was a trapped mind who lived in a body that no longer belonged to me, in fact I was a disconnected, drug addicted, walking rape victim, we all were.
Some may say that we will never end prostitution, well that doesn’t mean that we do nothing either, unfortunately in this world there will always be people willing to exploit the vulnerable, to make profit off the bodies of other human beings because nobody, not even the most equal societies in the world have found the cure for the human condition and all its complexities. You can pull the plug on technology, you can open more safe houses and instil support systems but it is only legislation that curbs human behaviour; that is in fact why the justice system exists in the first place. And when a man makes a conscious decision to go out and purchase the body of another human being to do with it what he wants, that is unacceptable human behaviour. We should never be bound by history, Ireland should know this more than most, for history is a series of processes through which humanity must be found and on this issue it is so long overdue and I for one, have had enough.
In the last 3yrs alone 29 children have been rescued from sexual slavery in Ireland, where do you think the children are kept? They are raped and abused in the same brothels as the adults, so I ask you, who pay’s the ultimate price under tolerating regimes? This is not acceptable to me, this should not be acceptable to anyone and on that basis alone prostitution should be outlawed.
Legislation should always reflect the values of a country, at the moment bodily integrity is not valued in Ireland even though the protection of bodily integrity is enshrined in our constitution and gender equality is not possible while women are up for sale, we will never stand shoulder to shoulder with our male counterparts so long as it is still acceptable for us to be on our knees or backs at their mercy.
At the moment our country is also debating marriage and how much we value it and who is entitled to that right, but at the same time we have a system where by it is acceptable for offenders to make a complete mockery of the commitments they made, because although I wasn’t counting wedding rings, I would agree that up to 60-70% of offenders are married or in committed relationships, I have always believed that these women have a right to know, they have a right to know what goes on in the back seat of the car, the very car they might be bringing the children to school in the next morning. The commitments these women have made must be valued and treated with integrity the opposite of which is hypocrisy and this hypocrisy must end.
The sex industry is both a cruel and disturbing place, run by criminals and all efforts must be made to bring it to its knees and the only way to do that is to cut off what makes it exist in the first place, the offenders, men who believe they have a right to buy other human beings. I want legislation that will fine offenders, jail the real pimps and coercers and send a clear message out to the traffickers to start packing and get the hell off our island because women are no longer for sale.
Mia De Faoite
Saturday, January 19, 2013
is TEN MILLION DOLLARDs.. just a start...FOR LIFE
Justin Bieber’s mom launches effort to raise $10 million for crisis pregnancy centers
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/justin-biebers-mom-launches-effort-to-raise-10-million-for-crisis-pregnancy
THANK YOU PATTIE for choosing LIFE
Thursday, January 17, 2013
You Deserve to Know the Truth: Contraception
a15 minutes Video that says it all "as it is" 1011
You Deserve to Know ...
Just thought I'd throw this in...
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Womens Rights Without Frontiers
Last Chance to “Save a Girl” in China This Year! (2012) 971
Womens Rights Without FrontiersHere’s what gets me out of bed in the morning – knowing that there are babies in China who are alive today, who would have been aborted or abandoned it weren’t for help from Women’s Rights Without Frontiers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)