Ok, Xtr8, you have a point, but his patriotism in the song was based more on realism and definitely not "God bless America" type of idealism.
Printable View
Ok, Xtr8, you have a point, but his patriotism in the song was based more on realism and definitely not "God bless America" type of idealism.
Well I'm relieved to hear everyone's comments. I certainly don't have anything against Canada. I just get tired of hearing folks criticize the United States constantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xstr8guy
Note here that people instantly jump from the 2259 issue to a larger, but seperate, one on how they feel the Bush administration "destroys our rights."
Ok - I'll say this again: I would argue one of the most significant and broad reaching protections of our rights happened two years ago when the Supreme Court ruled a first-time-ever right to privacy in the bedroom by invalidating the Texas sodomy law. Why is this never mentioned? I happen to think that this simply is "not news" to gays because we insist on living as victims at every opportunity. Everyone certainly has a lot to say about the negative.
Not only has the Supreme Court ruling assers a constitutional right that trumps anything a legislature might do, but it also paves the way for further equal protection rights that we also seek --- like same sex marraige.
Now obviously we have a good way to go on the marraige issue, but you are not going to overturn two thousand years of engrained custom overnight. Frankly I am astonished - I remember a time say 15 years ago when any discussion of gay marraige would have been ludicrous. Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts now have pretty serious domestic partnership laws. (more examples of recent rights advancement)
And I would suggest that if 2257 is enforced in the onerous way some folks are predicting, then I say fight back.
The government cannot effectively take away a legal and legitimate business under the pretense of "protecting minors." (well on the other hand the government can force you to tear up your building to make it handicapped accessible so who knows....) I say fight 'em - the constitution is on our side, and in the marketplace of ideas, ours will prevail.
Steve
:roadie: :roadie:
This is maybe the 6th or 7th revision so far on my response to the comments here made about my country, poor old Canada.
Let me just say that 2257 is a USA problem, leave us out of it please. Our laws are our laws, you don't know how they work or why they are there, just like most of us outside the USA can't begin to fathom how 2257 even comes close to protecting minors from sexual exploitation... fact is it doesn't but some of you thinks it can.. how I have no idea but hey, like I said, it is a USA problem, not mine.. so I stay out of the debate, so do me the same courtesy, don't bash the laws of my country when you really don't know what they are or how they are applied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaystoryman
Anymore Canadians wish to weigh in on this issue and explain to us how the law there works and/or is restrictive? I, for one, would love to hear how Canada functions regarding their child protection laws (which 2257 is NOT, by the way... it is a means of authentication to make sure the performers are adults, not those who view the content), as well laws on how they verify age of their models.
Rocky
I appreciate your view. I certainly don't want to give the impression that I would bash Canada. For example, in the United States we have laws that clealy discriminate against gays like myself - our Don't Ask Don't Tell prohibition immediately comes to mind. I would also add that the United States and Canada are both countries that allow us to live more openly and honestly in ways that gay people a generation earlier could not have imagined.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaystoryman
I still think it is a fair comment to compare the constitutional protections that US citizens enjoy with other countries, especially since the subject of those protections and potential remedies are constantly being discussed.
Steve
I don't believe we have a comparable law, regarding 2257. I'd have to check but basically its simple, no underage depictions. Burden of proof rests on the crown up here.. they have to prove I knew the picture was of a minor in order to sustain a charge... there have been cases where even posession of such have been thrown out based on that the person owning the material had not actually taken the pictures, but had bought them, thus making him not culpable for endangerment of a minor.
Basically the thrust of law enforcement here is to get those who actually do the crimes, not those who may enable the crime (which is a whole other matter) but rather to find the producers and parents who allow this to happen. It is similiar in essence to our drug laws. The police aren't really interested in the user, they want the producers or importers and have far more success than I think if they simply had a purge of users. One reason perhaps too why more safe site injection sites are being discussed and actually opened.
Of course in practise it doesn't always work that way. Get a bad assed crown attorney or some smug cop and you could find yourself in hot water, but the system here is, in my view, slanted towards dealing more with not just the crime itself but in many cases the cause of it. The law is not always focused that way, but it is the intent and for the most part is how it works.
Good example is how they deal with magazines. Customs allows them in, but the merchant can be liable if they don't use common sense. R rated magazines are generally in plastic, so you can't flip thru them. They are supposed to be kept either on the top shelf out of reach of kids or behind the counter... simple and safe.. hell even the corner store has them because no one makes a fuss.. its generally dealt with at the border between customs and the importer.. way it should be, not at the merchant level.
I think too you have to keep in mind that we don't elect prosecutors. We elect a government and the rest are appointments. The top cop is our Justice Minister and Solicitor General.. their jobs are to enforce the laws and to keep the police within the established guidelines. There is no 'record' to make or 'establish' in order for them to gain upward mobility on the political ladders, so to speak. There is no local DA or such either, a provincial AG who is a member of the legislature, but not specifically elected to that post like a states AG is... so that too I think allows for a different climate and a different thrust or focus as well.
For example, your new AG i believe has a think for porn, at least from what Basschick has related about how every speech he makes has something about porn in it. To be honest, our AG is rarely in the public eye, unless he's cocked up some or there is some scandal that requires an answer from his department. So again, the differences between our systems is vast.
hth clear it up a bit.
our 2257 will affect any canadians who shoot and sell content or shoot content that will either be used as banners or may be used by affiliates.
one of the potential developments is that all non-u.s. models must have a passporte, not just a drivers license or government i.d.
I've only been to Canada one time. Because that was my first time, I had to go through customs. I pull over. Get out, wait my turn. The rather cute Canadian officer drills me on why I'm going to Canada. They asked why I had a computer in my car, I told them I was a web designer and I travel with it. They asked what specifically it is that I design. I said "adult websites".
He takes my social security number and runs some sort of report. I have no record, not been arrested, basically I am a tourist who happens to be an adult webmaster of gay content. It was not a good experience. I'm sure that if I did have a record, they would have searched through my car and my computer. Needless to say, the trip was ruined by this and I did not at all get the feeling that this was a progressive country. To the contrary.
I think Canadians view themselves as progressive but when you get down to the interactions of everday people, being gay and being involved in the adult industry is two strikes against you as I experienced last year.
I still say it is slightly more progressive than the u.s.
OH come on, seriously dude, I mean you really think that because you had a report run on you, because a custom officer did what every other customs officer does it makes any country less progressive? Geez man, I am sorry but you shouldn't travel then. I have had US customs agents search through my luggage, had them want to know who I was even seeing, where I was staying, and that wasn't because I had a computer either. and that isn't post 911 either.. that is what a customs agent is supposed to do.
Man I knew I should stay out of this one. (is there a banging head gremlin? I sure could use one) :goofy:
Oh yes, I seriously think that if I wasn't gay or in the adult business they wouldn't have said jack shit. Just let me through like the rest of the folks. Sorry but everything changed once I divulged this. I'm not saying they don't have a right to do it, but really, crossing that border didn't change a thing. Some old fucked up attitudes about gay people and the adult industry.
Hear hear! In total agreement with you on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by desslock
This is one fucking GREAT country and full of incredible wonderful people. The only thing I can truly find wrong with it now is a handful of bible thumping politicians who are "having their day" but that day too shall soon end.
Hmmmm, Seems like perhaps we should all just way and see what the new regs say and then we can talk intelligently about them and what we need to do.
I've have no doubt that when they are finally released, greater minds than mine will be coming up with some fast proposals and most likely the filing of injunctions and temporary restraining orders which will then give us all the time to analyze them and develop a course of action based on fact rather than hysteria or fear.
Bill
they've been released. check the other threads on the board.
Basschick,
Thanks...saw the new regs about two minutes after I sent that post and have now spent the last hour or so reading them.
From first glance they appear to be a bit better than the Proposed Regs and they appear to also create a ton of confusion, which, in the long run, is probably going to be a good thing since it's going to take a team of Philadelphia lawyers to interpret exactly what the DOJ is trying to say. In other words, they are about as clear as mud.
I'm guessing that either mulitples injunctions or one concerted injunction requesting a TRO, temporary restraining order, will be filed and these Regs are going to be tied up in the courts for the next year or so which will give us all some breathing room.
The DOJ, in their effort to "clear up" the confusion, has just made things worse and have now created lots of work for the attorneys.
Bill
Yes I giggled at their redundant use of language, here's a good example on page three:
"For these reasons, visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons under the age of 18 constitute unlawful child pornography."
This statement implies that there is a "lawful" type of child pornography.
cheers
dzinerbear