I went to a “crisis pregnancy centre” today for a free pregnancy test. Once my friends Robert and Ian started humping on the couch in the counselling room, the anti-choice woman wasn’t much interested in keeping me around for anti-baby-murder propagandizing, but she did give me a test…
Or rather, she gave me a paper bag with a styrofoam cup, a film canister and a wet nap in it and sent me out back to piss in the parking lot because they don’t have a public washroom.
I opted to go use a Tim Hortons washroom with my little baggie full of weird scavenger hunt items. Luckily, I figured out in the nick of time that the wet nap was for wiping the piss off my hands, not my vag. (Ouch.) Unfortunately, the gay love in the counselling room cut my whole visit short, so I’ll never get to tell you why on earth the crisis pregnancy centre keeps around a bunch of candy dishes full of tiny plastic babies.
I live in a city where not only is it exceedingly difficult to get an abortion, but I am surrounded by anti-choice propaganda in every public place I may wish to visit. After Congress (a great big academic conference) was hosted here earlier this year, I heard two comments from friends who visited: 1) damn, there sure are a lot of anti-abortion billboards, and 2) damn, there sure are a lot of pregnant teenagers. And still, they want me to piss out back in the fucking parking lot.
And so ends today’s missive from the anti-feminist bizarro-world in which I live.
As most people already know, the Conservative government released its proposed legislation related to prostitution yesterday. I sent this letter to Rick Dykstra and Peter MacKay today echoing the call for the bill to be scrutinized by the Supreme Court of Canada.
By maintaining the law against public communication by sex workers, coupled with provisions making it impossible to work indoors and difficult for sex workers who use drugs to work with others, the bill replicates exactly the same brutal conditions of criminalization that have been taking sex workers’ lives since the 1980s.
Regardless of where you stand on the criminalization of bosses and consumers, please raise your voice to object to provisions that can only facilitate violence against sex workers.
Dear Peter MacKay and Rick Dykstra,
I’m writing to echo the call for Bill C36, “The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act,” to be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for review to determine whether its provisions pass constitutional muster.
In December 2013, the SCC decided unanimously that the federal government does not have the right to get sex workers killed in the name of eliminating prostitution. Canada’s anti-prostitution laws (which criminalized public communication for the purpose of prostitution, working indoors in a brothel, and taking money from sex workers) were shown to cause immeasurable harm to sex workers.
As analysis by Pivot Legal Society and many others has shown, the government’s proposed new legislation is not substantially different from the unconstitutional laws. It still criminalizes communication in almost every public place; it criminalizes the advertising sex workers must do in order to work indoors, effectively making off-street work impossible; and it still criminalizes many kinds of relationships with sex workers that are not exploitative, forcing sex workers to be isolated. These three practices, taken together, are lethal. They always have been.
I call on Peter MacKay and the Government of Canada to submit this legislation for review by the Supreme Court of Canada, and to draft, in its place, legislation that truly protects sex workers’ lives and livelihoods.
MA candidate, Geography, Brock University
Please feel free to use my letter as a template for your own. I plan to phone my MP tomorrow to repeat my demand for scrutiny of this terrible piece of legislation by the Supreme Court. You can find out who your MP is here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseofCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC
This is Not Feminist Legislation, and it’s Not Supply-Side Decriminalization
For those of us who would like to see sex workers totally decriminalized within our lifetimes, the Conservative government’s Bill C36 – a replacement for the anti-prostitution laws struck down by the Supreme Court in R v. Bedford – was worse than we thought. I think a lot of us, including me, were expecting to see a hollowed-out version of the Nordic Model. Y’know, lots of bluster about pimpsnjohns and no more than the barest of lip service to addressing workers’ “push factors”: things like poverty that make prostitution one of very few viable options for many workers, labour market conditions outside of the sex industry that make sex work, even under the brutal conditions of criminalization, more attractive than temporary or minimum wage work. Joy Smith’s Tipping Point in bill form.
What we got are the same laws we had before, dressed up a bit and with sharper teeth. The better to get people killed with.
There is a law criminalizing the purchase of sex. But pre-Bedford anti-prostitution laws also criminalized clients, and we have
already seen how they were enforced. There is also exactly the same communicating law as before – the same communicating law that is undoubtedly responsible for hundreds’ of women’s deaths and countless women’s incarcerations – but now it’s limited to areas where there might be children. That could include any residential or commercial neighbourhood (so basically everywhere), which means sex workers will still be pushed into industrial areas at night, and will still be rushing transactions with their criminalized clients. We know exactly how this story ends.
The new “BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN” veneer on this dangerous, cruel law doesn’t actually give sex workers space to work in their communities—but it does codify in law the cultural belief that sex workers ought not to be near children. Maybe someone with more legal knowledge than I have would be willing to discuss how this could affect sex workers in family court or interactions with child protective services (we know that Indigenous women are overrepresented among outdoor sex workers and, not by coincidence, that Indigenous children are overrepresented among children in foster care—so this really matters). Or how it could affect sex workers being denied housing in certain buildings or neighbourhoods, or former sex workers facing discrimination in non-sex employment. Continue reading
Spoiler alert: It’s not women’s DNA, it’s systemic gender inequality.
Back when I was still married, my spouse and I used to watch TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin together. Having a bit more patience for talking heads than I, she also rage-watched The Michael Coren Show and Fox News. But I’m not really into pundits—I was just in it for a short pseudo-Left debate every now and then and maybe something to think about as the night wore on.
But after a year or so of watching, I started to think to myself damn, that’s a lot of dudes. And once I noticed, I couldn’t un-notice, and as the show went on, dude after dude after dude, I gave up on it.
Earlier tonight, Paikin himself decided to address the dudely problem with The Agenda. That, in itself, is a fine enough thing to do, but he went about it… well, to put it mildly, he went about it all wrong:
No man will ever say, “Sorry, can’t do your show tonight, I’m taking care of my kids.” The man will find someone to take care of his kids so he can appear on a TV show. Women use that excuse on us all the time.
No man will say, “Sorry, can’t do your show tonight, my roots are showing.” I’m serious. We get that as an excuse for not coming on. But only from women.
No man will say, “Sorry can’t do your show tonight, I’m not an expert in that particular aspect of the story.” They’ll get up to speed on the issue and come on. Women beg off. And worse, they often recommend a male colleague in their place.
Reposted from my blog at https://landing.athabascau.ca/pages/view/549972/how-to-get-a-decent-grade-on-an-essay-or-%E2%80%9Cwriting-tips-for-students-who-suck-at-writing%E2%80%9D
Writing is a fact of university life, but not everyone likes to do it, and not everyone is particularly good at it.
If you don’t make it out of undergrad without at least the ability to communicate clearly, you’re going to be pretty fucked. And if you don’t write at least somewhat competently, you’re not going to get very good grades, even if you have passion for and really good ideas about whatever it is you’re studying.
This guide is for students who don’t like to write or just plain suck at writing, and who want to be able to make themselves clear and get decent grades. You don’t think you need to be perfect, but you’re tired of hearing that poor composition is distracting graders from your good ideas. And of course, you want to get a decent grade on your paper. Continue reading
As I sit with about a zillion posts in drafts and no time or energy to finish any of them (sorry, that’s basically the story of my life right now), I thought it might be a good idea to put up links to older stuff I’ve written in other places. Some of the newspaper articles are lost forever on the internet, but I have pdfs of most of the things that aren’t linked. And the rabble.ca and Briarpatch articles are open-access, yay!
Here it is: http://autocannibalism.wordpress.com/other-writing/