grainfedprairieboy

Then use Wiki as your personal link to support your own research (again you could've wrote it yourself or someone like you may have). But make public the actual US State Department document that supports your claim and I will concede it. Pretty simple really.

I am confident that in your mind my singular mention equates to a complete "fixation". Conversely, I am equally confident that your three references to that single comment plus your escalating references to homosexuality in your mind is completely unintentional. When Will Forbes wrote: the idea that to be alive is to be constantly beleaguered by annoying idiots, poorly designed products and the unapologetic ferocity of fate. Competence and intelligence are not rewarded in life but punished." He obviously had you in mind while he drove a Chevette listening on the radio that the Liberals formed a majority government with less then 40% of the popular vote.

I find this one of those interesting debates. On the one hand, you can abort a fetus any time pretty much up to the point of conception through just about any method and that is OK. We made it legal by not making it illegal. Only us and North Korea so far. You can also drink & drive into the side of a car carrying a pregnant woman who really wants her baby but you can't be charged with manslaughter if it dies because it might negatively effect the abortion law......or lack of one at any stretch. So my point is, in complete seriousness, I don't see how you can stop women from doing anything that will harm her child that wouldn't ultimately threaten Canada's lack of an abortion law and force us to deal with that first.

I'm sorry, I don't actually accept Wiki in any debate as for all I know you wrote it yourself 10 minutes ago. Not to be difficult but any credible evidence from any Middle East studies program from any university is more then acceptable and I won't dispute that I promise.

We call them HRCs. Of course, they are only capable of "guilty". But by golly, when the accuser, prosecutor and judge are all the same person and 800 years of British Common Law is ignored the system is incredibly efficient.

I believe that under no circumstance should anyone ever be permitted to present evidence against someone accused and not be fully visible. I believe this should also include silent witnesses (behind screens) and anonymous testimony as well. That the judge is left to decide does not bode well as our courts operate on precedence so one judge let's them do it when it's iffy and it is cast in stone after that.

Never heard of an Iranian or Saudi red light district or underground prostitution network, especially from a country that will hang a woman from a street light or shower her with rocks for doing the "wrong" thing with her cookie. Is this conjecture on your part or do you have something to back it up?

Scott Reid......is that really you?

Jesus H Christ - your stock with me just rose 100 points. If I understand what you're saying correctly then here is my answer: I signed over all my rights by national consensus rather then individual choice. As such, I cannot opt out of a provincial health care plan......and........receive a cheque from the receiver general rebating me 50% of all taxes I pay in support of the health care system. In Canada you are either in and you pay for it or you are out and still pay for it. No middle ground. My main objection to the health care system is that consumer choice is reduced and to simplify things let's look at MRIs. I currently pay for access to an MRI through excessive taxes and a promise by government that the service is there however, I can only access the service after a lengthy wait period and a doctor's prescription and that is based on him believing there is something that warrants the scan. Or of course I can pony up the cash now (with a doctor's prescription) for timely access which in any other industry would be considered a kind of extortion, but not when government does it. But being forced to pay for something I have already paid for to me demonstrates the system does not work. Having to ask a doctor for his blessing (he gets to bill government for that visit) like some schmoe begging the Don for a favour just adds insult to injury. It should not matter if I want a preventative scan or am looking to fill a gap in my day. My health is my business and not the governments. But government does decide which medication, treatments and procedures I will be entitled to and my choice is limited to agreeing or seeking treatment outside of the country for an additional expense. I cannot be a terminally ill cancer patient in Canada and demand experimental treatment as an example. It must be offered. Whether governments have enacted seat belt and helmet laws to save money on health care I suppose is debatable. I certainly recall that sentiment bandied about as good reason for such laws by those who advocated them at the time. As such, if I am the guy paying for your health care, and given that in a country where so many people don't work, or work for the various levels of government, there are few of us who are actually wealth generators and the entire burden ultimately falls on us and thus it would afford my kind a tremendous savings if we could reduce the greatest drain on the system. That and maybe I like to piss off rebellious kids who think smoking is cool.

Oooh.....the classic 'I know you are but what am I?" retort followed by another lame quip. Seriously lady, I'd appreciate it if you put some effort into this instead of simply proving that swimming in the river in my community has had no ill side effects on me.

I think the Church's objection stems from the global shortage of maids as opposed to religion.

Sure it did, it left it open to interpretation on a case by case basis so that means at some point some woman (or man) will be sitting there behind a veil and the court will have to take it on faith. How else do you read the ruling?

Prayer: And Lordy we all know if it ain't Alberta it ain't beef and I'll kill any corn fed son of a bitch who says otherwise. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-339085478429445601# I actually raise bugs on my ranch. If it ain't Alberta it ain't honey and goddamn the corn holed eastern bastard who might say otherwise. I also have a business that employees 18 layabout immigrants from east of the 100th meridian and am still a reservist (though I may pull pole this year). Christ your insults are lame and unimaginative. This isn't your marriage.....try putting a little effort into it.

What a goofy country this is, and I'm the guy who is in favour of the right of men to force women to wear Burkas or for women to choose to wear them or whatever the real reason is and I can't understand this ruling that is supposed to make everyone happy on both sides of the debate. When it comes to bank lines, airport security, drivers license photos etc, Christ, is there no common sense left in this country? Enter the madness

Good luck I say. The Toronto Star believes itself to be one of the official opposition parties.

Well Dre, if it were not for the human factor you may be able to convince me. Right now, though my brain agrees with your position while my heart opposes it. I cannot in good conscience offer formal or tacit approval for something that is so demeaning to women aimed at those who are already vulnerable or in a position in their lives where prostitution may be an answer. Perhaps it is the chauvinist or humanist in me but I cannot separate the business end from the human factor in this topic so I reckon we'll have agree to disagree. Good points though overall.

Overall I think you make a really good case and probably this is the best "pro" argument I've seen. So allow me to ask this: In your opinion, if prostitution were to be legalised in such a community, do you think the number of sexual transactions would increase over what occurs in the same community when it is illegal?

Don't quit your pogey or whatever it is you do for a living. Incapable of the simplest of research are we? I anticipated that before I even knew you and highlighted the sentence in advance and gave you the number. I admit though, you're denser then I originally gave you credit for being. Why that's mighty sporting of you. As they say, it's thought and not the gift that counts. Just trying to use parables you can relate to. And as for the Militia, by golly Canada invented the concept of the citizen soldier more then 400 years ago and we have a proud history of such regardless of what some new age eastern apologist thinks. So I'd rather eat shit with the Airborne then dine with a Liberal any day.

No one actually believed the Toronto Star's assertion in the first place so the topic seems to have evolved to a philosophical debate on legalising prostitution. I feel a separate thread is necessary for all the yellow journalism examples set by the Star.

RNG hits the nail right on the head in post #22. You surrender your healthcare to the government you must expect the government to eventually enact laws such as seatbelt or helmet regulations. And the government controls everything. Got a cancer and want to try a new drug? Sorry.....not yet approved for funding by health Canada. Want an MRI? Sorry, government decides if you even need one. Need a hip replacement and can't work? Sorry, waiting list of 6 months is what it is. Of course, there is the second tier to Canadian medicare........USA

I'm just mocking your type. There's something I'm not often accused of. OK, I'll bite.....what haven't I the brass to express IYHO?

Though I see your perspective tell me how that has worked for night shift convenience store workers or taxi drivers or any other segment of society that deals with human garbage on a routine basis but not on the government payroll like police, medical staff etc? You legalise this industry you turn your back on it while it expands plain and simple.

I meant the MLW community & collective ignore list.

And offend your sensibilities and expedite my trip to your ignore list? In more accurate words: I love to dish it out and sit in anticipation for some jerk off to get the ball rolling for me.

I think any country has a certain responsibility to it's weakest members not to exploit them. So for example, making drugs more available to abusers rather then cleaning them up might seem to be the cheaper and easier way out of the situation a but it doesn't correct the human factor. Now in regards to prostitution itself, whether we like it or not more girls will be lured into the system through an expanded and legal industry. Further, those that need help will more likely be denied it. Currently I believe that every woman convicted of prostitution should be forced to go through some form of counseling and that outreach efforts should be increased to target those not actively seeking assistance. It is beyond me that a country as affluent and caring as Canada is so willing to tolerate homelessness, drug addition, indian reservations, prostitution and a variety of other social ills that destroy the lives of so many of our fellow citizens. In perspective, you read about one woman be murdered by a drive by shooting and you're outraged. 500 indian and metis girls have disappeared from the prairies in a generation but because they were sex trade no one gives a tinkers damn. All laws, rules and regulations, including those of taxation, are orchestrated to influence, direct or control our behaviour. If the government wants to stop you from buying a gasoline automobile tomorrow all they have to do is place a punitive tax on gasoline and offer rebates on electric cars. When prostitution is illegal we are afforded the best opportunity to assist those trapped in it and minimise it's influence and spread. Prostitution will never disappear but made legal it will be every where. Think of gambling in the 1970s which was mostly underground. Today gambling is everywhere, destroys far more lives, and the average casino probably does more business then the whole industry did nationwide a generation ago. I haven't been to Amsterdam since 2000 but I don't remember being overly impressed with the window shopping experience.