Scotty

Well, Republicans have certainly seemed to demonstrate a healthy interest in enriching big corporate donors and the wealthy over the last thirty years or so.

Regardless of the mouthings of politicians, it is undeniable that a major difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former's prophet was a man of peace who could rarely be provoked to any kind of violence, while the latter's prophet was a conquering warrior prince who slaughtered large numbers of people without remorse. Jesus didn't try to convert people by violence. Muhammad certainly did. And a certain number of his descendants thus see little wrong with committing violence against heretics. Now, no doubt someone will bring up the fact Christianity has had its violent phases as well. It certainly did. And if a religion begun by a prophet of peace can have its violent phases imagine how much more violent a religion begun by a mass murderer can be. Islam stands for Submission. You are to submit your will to that of Allah, submit your life to His guidance and use. And if you don't want to, well, a goodly number of Muslims will force you to. It's always been that way.

You're acting like there are only two choices. You can screw the workers and give them as little as possible, and thus make a profit, or you can be more generous to the workers and give them a working wage, and thus go bankrupt. It's not that black and white. It's more than possible to pay your workers reasonable wages and benefits and still turn a healthy profit. But the corporate mindset is that if you can shave a quarter of a percentage point off your costs, then you do it. And if that means firebombing kindergartens that's what you do - no thought involved, just automatic. And note that I'm not suggesting every enterprise can afford to pay their workers more. Many cannot without raising prices. But for the most part, the ones that can afford it are the ones least likely to do it.

I didn't say unionization didn't result in better benefits. I said they weren't "amazing".

And yet, this economic damage from globalization has had no effects on higher wage earners. They've been taking higher and higher profits. Funny how that works, eh?

I back up everything I say. That crime isn't dropping. What part of "remained stable" eludes you? Police reported crime is down because fewer people are bothering to report crime. Why? I'm satisfied with my personal safety. I have strong locks on the doors, bars o the basement windows, and a burglar alarm system. Does that mean I'm happy with the crime rate, or the 22% crime solution rate the police have? Uhm, no.

Female strippers earn a lot more than male strippers...

so you're saying the judge who presided over the initial trial was an incompetent who didn't understand law?

My apologies. I have this tendency to think that people who regularly involve themselves in discussions on certain topics are reasonably aware of the information which is out there, especially when it's been discussed here on this forum numerous times. Overall, just under one-third (31%) of all incidents were reported to the police, down from 34% in 2004. In the case of violent crime, 29% of incidents were reported to police, while about 36% of household incidents were brought to their attention. Statistics Canada So police-reported crime is dropping... because people aren't reporting it. I don't regard that as a reason to celebrate and stop worrying about crime.

Some homeless people have been known to commit crimes specifically so they can go to jail. What do people actually feel is a deterrent in going to jail? What's bad about jail? Let's see, no women? Well, if you're a wino, that's not likely an issue. Violent companions? Theere's lots of those on the street. The British at least have hard labour, but there are no such sentences in Canada. We're too 'enlightened'.

There is a school of thought in criminology which says that if you hammer someone who is a first time offender, that is much more likely to discourage a second offense than if you coddle him. If you take it easy, the offender might well think that his punishment was no big deal, and decide the fear of more of the same is little deterrent.

How odd that Stats Canada undertakes this massive survey, so large it can only do it every 5 years, when the data is unreliable. Have you considered contacting them and informing them of your extensive expertise in statistical sampling, and telling them their data is without value? I'm sure they'd appreciate the information. The ease of making a phone call has nothing whatsoever to do with why people would or would not report crime to police.

I'm not going to peruse the NAMBLA site, but I do recall their famous motto "Sex by Eight or its too Late", and that doesn't sound like anything one would consider in any way natural. I sympathise with harsh criminal sentences for doing what is natural and not knowing it was illegal, ie, the age of the young lady involved. Your attitude is, not surprisingly,unsympathetic. There is a certain philosophy of feminism which regards all male sexuality as inherently illegitimate and dangerous to females. Psychiatrists would disagree with them - and with you. as I've already pointed out, there is absolutely nothing abnormal about male interest in attractive young women - as much as certain feminists might want to claim otherwise. I'm interested in the numerous psychiatric cites you'll no-doubt provide which state adult male interest in teenage girls is unnatural. Let me ask you this question. Are you of the school of feminist thought which says all sex between males and females constitutes rape?

If they believed, from legal advice, that this was legal, then there was no attempt to break the law. That would seem fairly obvious.

What they want is sex with an attractive young woman. This tends to be a rather universal male desire.

I'm reminded of a Seinfeld episode where George and Jerry are at a network boss's home and George gets caught looking down his 15 year old daughter's top. Jerry is trying to explain this to Elaine later, and says something to the effect that cleavage draws the male eye like a magnet, that nothing matters, including age, in the presence of cleavage. On the other hand, you don't stare. You notice it like looking at the sun. You glance and then quickly look away. Too dangerous to stare.

But if sexual interest in attractive young women, even if they are under 18, is instinctive and genetic, why should we feel contempt and shun someone who feels that interest? We're not suggesting they should act upon it, for that would in most circumstances be considered morally deficient. However, the sexual interest itself is not something men have any control over.

Legally that depends on the jurisdiction. i think the point I would like to make is that if there's doubt, then sexual interest in her is not perverted or a disorder of any kind. It's normal male sexual interest.

Well, yes and no. Hebephilia, as I understand it, is particularly interested in younger teens, and is only considered diagnosable if it becomes a harmful obsession, a compulsive disorder, so to speak. A generalized sexual interest in young women which extends to attractive teenagers is not considered hebephilia. This is, as I said, probably because you often can't tell a 22 year old from a 17 year old, especially if the latter is trying to appear older with makeup, clothes, etc. Tracy Lords was the centerfold in Penthouse magazine at 15. She had the face and body (and phony Id) to appear to be the 22 year old she claimed. But irrespective of her age, her physique was such as to draw male sexual interest. Nevertheless, sixteen is the age of consent. And I disagree that at 16, or 15, or 14 you don't know enough to turn down $200 to massage some naked guy in your underwear. I don't know.It seems to me men prey on any attractive female and look to convince them to sleep with them. In this particular case the predatory behaviour seems to have consisted of asking particular girls if they have any friends who'd like to come over and join in. There was no seduction, false promises of love, grooming, etc. it was "Here's $200. Take your clothes off." I don't think you can equate an agreement between two people where both get what they want with rape. It's gone on for millennia, by which I think you mean older men, younger women, simply because the place of the male in teh relationship was to provide for the female and family, and younger men didn't have the resources. The place of the female was to breed children and take care of the house. Love was an esoteric notion not really necessary to the relationship. Parents sought older, established men who could take care of their teenage daughters. This was not an abusive situation, in other words. Only if you equate teenage girls to six year old boys, and we don't let the latter drive cars - or consent to sex with adults. I also don't think 6 year old boys can pass for 18. The interest in young boys, in other words, is completely unnatural. The interest in teenage girls is not.

I suppose I've simply set my standards with regard to politicians so to not expect anything be done out of ethical or moral reasons. I don't believe politicians act like that. Moral? Ethical? They'll do anything and everything they think they can get away with as long as it profits them in some way, usually politically. Which is why the Tories doing something which might go against the 'spirit' of the law just makes me shrug and say "So?" I mean, next you'll be telling me it snows in winter here.

I remember in a journalism class (it was an elective) the teacher joking about the number of ways and times certain newspapers could creatively work in the words 'teen' and 'sex' into a headline because it was guaranteed to get attention. Thus any story involving teens and sex is sure fire winner to the media. Of course, that was a long time ago, when grown men could safely lust after teenage girls and get nothing more than a disapproving scowl. Let me start out by suggesting that it is perfectly normal for adult males to have a sexual interest in young women. That interest is genetic and instinctive and has little to do with the man's age. It also has little to do with ethics, values or morality. Those things reign in the instinct, but they do not eliminate it. A psychologist or psychiatrist will tell you that pedophilia is a clinically diagnosed illness involving a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. If you ask him to diagnose adult male interest in teenage girls he'll say 'normal'. The hysteria over adult-child sex, however, over the past decade or so, has grown to such a degree, that virtually any interest expressed in anyone under the age of 18 can be termed 'pedophilia' by the media. Usually this is imbued with the kind of disapproving contempt reserved for all male sexuality, which is invariably considered crude and hostile to almost everyone around them, and certainly to females. The difficult for men is that many young women can, depending on hair, makeup, body type and attire, pass for anywhere from fourteen to twenty four. Which brings me to Prince Andrew and the British media. Now notwithstanding the fact the tabloids over there had, up until the change of law in 2003, bare breasted teenage girls in their newspapers who were often as young as sixteen, notwithstanding that girls as young as 15 could and did appear nude in British mens magazines up until 2003, the media are baying after Prince Andrew because he is, or was, a friend of Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein was a respectable American financier until it emerged he had a particular interest in young girls. The facts, as far as I've been able to see, is that this wealthy man liked to have young women 'massage' him. This sometimes included sex, but apparently that was a rarity. Or rather, it was a rarity when he didn't take care of it himself during the massage. All of the teenage girls went there willingly, recruiting each other, so to speak, and were apparently paid for what they did. All of them, so far as I've been able to find out, have admitted to the authorities that they lied about their ages and told him they were eighteen. Epstein is now in a Florida jail (18 months!) for soliciting a prostitute, and is considered a serious sex offender. The British media, including the Telegraph and Reuters, is referring to him as a pedophile and a child predator. And so eager are the British media for a story they can work teenage sex into that Prince Andrew is under tremendous attack simply for being a friend of the man! I have to wonder where this is all headed, where this salacious double standard with regard to teenage girls - who are heavily, heavily sexualized in the media and yet considered absolutely out of bounds to even look at (figure that one out). Mens sexuality, normal sexuality, is being turned into something twisted and evil as the media, feminism, and eager to please politicians, criminalize normal male instinct.

You ignored this part: This Juristat examines 2006 police-reported crime data Police reported crime is dropping. Crime, on the other hand, is not. Stats Can's own victims surveys say as much. Just most people aren't bothering to report crime any more, perhaps because there's so much of it.

Yeah, you'll note that it talks about intent. Since there was no intent I imagine a guilty verdict would result in a small fine. And as much as the far left is salivating over the possibility of prison terms, no one has ever gone to prison, not even for a day, under this act.

I imagine what they were thinking was that it was legal.

- it was illegal, but not criminal! ("the penalties involved range from a year in prison, a $2,000 fine, or both, or up to a $25,000 fine. Upon sentencing, provisions in the Elections Act also permit a judge to impose additional penalties, including deregistering the party or liquidating assets") ... serious stuff![/indent] And do you have any information that under this law ANYTHING but a fine has EVER been levied?