kimmy

The claim that "The Velvet Touch" was licensed by the city has disappeared from NDP statements about the incident (it's now referred to as "a community clinic"). Has the claim that it was a licensed clinic actually been substantiated, or is Olivia's comment the only evidence for that claim? Now, if Jack *did* have regular appointments at this place, then the claim that he had no idea what kind of operation it was seems to be very, very thin. You're the guy who said his girlfriend is a registered massage therapist, right? What hours does she work? Is her place open after 9pm? Do they have a red-light/green-light system? The police said they had their eye on this place from the day it opened. They'd already been raided once. A Toronto city councillor says anybody in society would have known what kind of place it was. But Jack Layton... a guy on city council who was familiar with civic issues and was campaigning against sexual exploitation at the time... didn't even suspect anything? The claim stretches credibility to an absurd degree. I am not claiming Jack Layton received that service at all. I am claiming that a real champion of women, as Jack Layton claims to be, would not frequent a place like that at all, period, regardless of what service he was personally receiving. -k

I think you ended up making fun of your hero, not me. So, do you think he was biking around at 9pm looking for a massage, or do you think he was headed straight for The Velvet Touch? What's your hunch on that? The known reported facts make it clear that only a very naive person would have gone into "The Velvet Touch" without realizing what kind of establishment it was. The difference of opinion is knowing whether to believe Jack Layton is really that naive. The known facts about Jack Layton make it difficult for me to believe he is that naive. You're clinging to the fact that he was not charged with anything as a defense of his conduct. But what casts doubt on him is the fact that he was there at all. -k

"neither" is a strong possibility as well. Warren Kinsella wrote that he thinks a political party was involved, and he's been one of those war-room guys so his opinion is pretty relevant. -k

What would they have arrested him for? They had no evidence that he'd received sexual services. Being too naive to know you've walked into a brothel isn't a crime. -k

You objected to the premise that he was biking around looking for a massage and suggested he may have gone straight there. Now you don't think it makes a difference. hmm. But if he was heading straight there... doesn't that suggest he had some knowledge of the place? If not prior visits, then at least by reputation? That sure doesn't help the "I had no idea what kind of place it was" defense, does it. I think you'd be better off sticking with the premise that he was biking around looking for a massage, and picked the wrong place by accident. Yes, I gathered. I think it's funny that you're offering that as some sort of evidence in support of him. Like, what else could he have done? It's called "The Velvet Touch"? It was open after 9pm? The red-light-green-light warning system? Even the most naive guy should have had alarm bells going off by this point. And given Layton's familiarity with civic issues and sex-trade issues at the time, he certainly *wasn't* the most naive guy. Even if he had no knowledge of this specific establishment, he has to have been aware of the prevalence of that sort of activity in that area of town at that time. This is a difference of opinion. Jack says he had no idea what kind of place he was at. You believe him. I don't find it remotely credible. We'll have to disagree. -k

I find the Liberals the more likely suspect, Bubbles. Jonathan Kay says a Liberal operative offered him this scoop 2 years ago. They're far more entrenched in Toronto. This guy Giorgio Mammoliti that was quoted in these articles is a Liberal. The Liberals are fighting for their survival, and are in full panic mode. The only evidence pointing to the Conservatives is that Stephen Harper is a mean guy. I think the Liberals are the far more likely suspect. -k

I'm wondering: if Jack knew exactly where he was going, rather than biking around... do you think that makes Jack's story look better, or worse? I know what I'm thinking, but I'd like to hear your answer. What was he going to do? Hang around? Go back to a place the cops had warned him about once already? Of course he never went back. Simple question: do you really believe Jack had no idea what kind of establishment this was? -k

My objection to what Layton did is nothing to do with the idea that he may have paid for sexual services. My objection is that he was patronizing an establishment that's almost certainly a criminal operation that exploits women. He should have known what kind of place he was going to, or at least should have figured it out very quickly. And my point has nothing to do with what services Jack may or may not have received at all. My point is that Jack shouldn't have been at a place like that in the first place. If you're a pacifist, you shouldn't buy UFC products. Your money is supporting violent sport, even if you never throw a punch yourself. If you're an animal rights supporter, you don't go to the cock-fights. Your money is supporting cruelty to animals, even if you never harm a chicken yourself. If you're a feminist, you don't go to the Velvet Touch Open-All-Night Red-Light-Green-Light Massage Parlour. Your money is most likely supporting a criminal enterprise that preys on vulnerable women, even if you don't order the "happy ending". A real fighter for dignity and equality for women would have got his ass out of there the moment he realized what kind of place it was. A real fighter for dignity and equality for women probably wouldn't have been biking around Chinatown after 9pm looking for a massage in the first place. -k

Maybe the customers were really satisfied. What's your point? That Jack had no way of knowing what kind of place he was walking into because there had been no complaints? Did Jack decide which massage parlour to visit by sifting through complaints from the public and picking one that nobody had complained about? Would Jack have known not to go into that establishment if only somebody had filed a complaint with the police? I'm honestly perplexed as to what argument you're trying to make. -k

"You know, we have a government that's spending billions on fighter jets we don't need, we have a government that's been found in contempt of parliament. We have a government that's had scandal after scandal. We have a prime minister who won't even answer your questions. How much longer are people going to stand for it? Come on, Canada! It's time to Rise Up! Rise up!" <a tumbleweed blows past> "...come on, people! Rise Up!" <crickets> "Hey, everyone! I received a massage in 1996 too. Anybody want to grill me about it?" "...Please?" "...Anybody?" <a lonely wolf howls somewhere out in the wilderness> -k

"He's claiming he got a legitimate massage, but the issue here is it's clear it was a rub-and-tug and most people in society would know that when they go in. I'd be very surprised that a very smart politician would not have known ... and Jack was very smart." -Toronto councillor Giorgio Mammoliti Jack says that he had no idea what kind of place it actually was. Really? It's called "The Velvet Touch". It's located in a district known for bawdy houses. They had a "red-light/green light" warning system. Jack walked in there at 9pm. Legitimate therapeutic clinics are open after 9pm? Are we supposed to believe that Jack was the most naive guy in Toronto? Regardless of what services Jack was actually receiving, patronizing such an establishment is a betrayal of the feminist principles Jack says he fights for. -k

His name, and therefore his reputation, are attached to it. For somebody (like a politician, a celebrity, or in this case an author and journalist) whose reputation is vital to his livelihood, that's accountability enough. And as far as Canadian law is concerned, statements made on internet websites are as actionable as statements made on TV or in print. There is a considerable number of politicians, celebrities, and athletes who have caused lasting harm to their reputations and even careers with controversial or poorly-thought-out statements in a variety of media, including Twitter. "It doesn't count, because I just said it on Twitter" never worked as an excuse. If you said it, you said it. Consider, for example, former NDP candidate Malcolm Azania, who was haunted by what some said were anti-Jewish remarks that he wrote in UseNet postings back before most people had internet or even knew what it was. Twitter is public record. Even UseNet posts from 20 years ago are public record. If you said it, you said it. Nobody accepts "well, it was just the internet so it doesn't count". Do you think Jonathan Kay is lying? If not, why does it matter where he said it? If you do believe he's lying... why would it be any more believable if he wrote it in the newspaper? -k

Well, the main event was a bit of a dud. Shields didn't threaten GSP at all, and GSP was obviously way better yet didn't bother to put much pressure on Shields. Probably some of it was due to GSP's eye getting poked (or whatever happened...) but GSP just didn't seem like he was interested in finishing the fight. Hominick vs Aldo, on the other hand, was amazing. After coming perilously close to getting knocked out, and with rather gruesome swelling on his forehead, Hominick didn't just hang in there, he put a beating on Aldo in the final round. If the fight had been just a a couple minutes longer, he might have been able to put him away. The crowd at my place was off the charts for local kid Rory MacDonald in the preliminaries. Nate Diaz is a seriously tough guy, and Rory didn't just beat him, he beat the shit out of him. Those 3 slams were the craziest thing I've seen in MMA. It was like something out of WWE wrestling! Randy Couture is retiring, which is good, because he's 47 years old and probably doesn't have much left to do in the Octagon unless James Toney feels like getting smacked around again. I expect that he will continue to be part of UFC in some capacity. -k

do you really think? -k

If Jonathan Kay puts something on the public record, that's different from kimmy@mlw or AW@mlw writing anonymous speculation on a message board. It's relevant for 2 reasons. 1) some people have been asking "why did it take 15 years for this to show up? Howcome nobody found out about it before?" Well, here's a well known journalist from a major publication saying he was offered the story 2 years ago and didn't pursue it because he didn't have adequate information. 2) some people are convinced it was the Conservative backroom types behind this story. Well, Johnathan Kay says it was a Liberal backroom type who offered him the story earlier. This doesn't provide any further information about what Jack Layton actually did, but it provides some perspective to two of the major angles surrounding this news item. -k

As this Twitter account belongs to a columnist from one of Canada's major media outlets, I wouldn't dismiss it so lightly. -k

Communion wafers? -k

All we know for sure is that the police had no evidence that he was doing anything wrong and did not charge him. The stuff about getting everybody to the station first sounds like sheer speculation. I think it's pretty presumptuous for you assume you know how police would handle a given situation. I don't believe he was engaged in a sex act either. What I'm wondering is if he was in an establishment where he ought to have suspected young women were being exploited. "Asian masseuse" and "Chinatown massage parlor" are not the same thing. If I knew an Asian who happened to be a masseuse, I would not assume she was a prostitute. If somebody told me he was off to a Chinatown massage parlor, I'd probably suspect he was up to no good. (full disclosure: when I was 14 or 15, a fried's mom, who is Asian, worked on my back when I'd hurt myself lifting weights. I was mostly naked. The police didn't burst in. I did not receive a "happy ending". She wasn't even a real masseuse, my friend just assured me that her mom "knows things". I have no idea what that even means. It did seem to help, though.) So you "get" that there's a connotation after all. (so who's contradicting themselves?) So is it unreasonable to assume Jack was probably aware of the connotation too? Is it reasonable to wonder if he should have wondered if he was in the wrong place *before* the police showed up? -k

I see no problem with strategic voting. "My favorite candidate has little chance to win. Of the two candidates who do have a chance, I prefer one and dislike the other. I should change my vote to support the candidate I prefer, to reduce the chances of the outcome I least want" It's a completely legitimate decision making process. -k

According to the report, he was asked if he knew sex-acts were being performed... and of course he answered no. But that doesn't answer the question I want answered. Which is, when he said "no", is that believable? I want to know if it's believable or if it that answer would require a degree of naivete that's past the point of credibility. That's what I'm asking for. Surely somebody familiar with Toronto's Chinatown can provide some information about the place and its reputation. -k

...and out of control public debt, and rising tuition and housing and fuel costs, and environmental hysteria... -k

Yes, everybody agrees that Jack Layton was at a certain establishment on Jan 9, 1996. What I want to know, and has not been answered to my satisfaction in any of the articles I've read, is this: What kind of place *was* it? Is it a place where trained therapists in professional attire perform a therapeutic service? Or is it a place where young women who don't speak english wander around half dressed and there's dim lighting and dirty mattresses and some kind of weird odor in the air? My opinion hinges on that. If it was the former type of a place, and the cops showed up based on a false complaint or something, then no problem. If it was the latter sort of place, then if he's a real feminist he would have got his ass out of their immediately. Oh FFS. That wasn't the implication. We all know that "Chinatown massage parlor" has a certain connotation. -k

Jack Layton *has* made a career of moralizing about such things. He portrays himself as a champion of equality and dignity for women, and he's called for a ban on lap-dances. Patronizing a place where young immigrant women are exploited is absolutely a betrayal of the feminist values Layton claims to uphold. Just as much as a "family values" politician cheating on his wife, or an anti-gay crusader "tapping his foot" in a bathroom stall. So we need to know two things: Did he actually go to such a place? Did he do so knowingly? Well, I'm certainly not an expert on the subject. I would think that there would be things that might tip you off if you were at that sort of place. The words "massage" and "Chinatown" appearing in the same sentence are a tip-off for most people. -k

There were a number of threads on this topic last night, that were merged into this thread. Some of those threads contained posts that absolutely veered into libel territory. Those posts have been deleted, and deservedly so. The posts that remain might not look like libel, and complaints about libel might seem out of place right now, but some of the stuff that was removed was absolutely over the line, and the moderators were completely correct in removing it. -k

To play devil's advocate... the story has been substantially corroborated by none other than Olivia Chow. From what I'm reading she's not disputing that Jack was at a massage parlor that was raided by police, her objection to the story is that the massage parlor was a legitimate clinic and that nothing inappropriate was going on. And, to further play devil's advocate, why doesn't she name the establishment he was at? That would be a surefire way to put an end to speculation as to what sort of place he was actually at. Saying that he was at "a registered clinic" seems a little coy to me. I suspect that this is probably just what you say it is. However, I think that now that this question has arisen, Layton should put an end to speculation by stating the name of the establishment he was at. Is that unreasonable? -k