Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Politics makes for strange bedfellows. In this case the interests of right wing moralist prudes who think that prostitution (or any sex outside of heterosexual marriage) is the work of the devil happen to line up with the interests of some feminists who believe that prostitution is simply an extension and continuation of centuries of male subjugation. The latter may have a point. And yes, this was the work of the Conservative Party appealing to its regressive, moralistic right wing base while simultaneously putting progressives in a defensive position by appealing to a certain group of feminists. You mean appealing to people who don't want prostitutes working in the apartment next door, with a parade of johns, often drunk, moving up and down the halls. No one has a perfect solution to prostitution, but I haven't seen anything the Left in Canada has come out with which seems any likelier to please most Canadians. And while there were a number of irritants which the Canadian people didn't like about the Tories, the prostitution law was most definitely NOT one of them. The SC found the previous law - put in place by another government - illegal, so they came up with a new one based on Sweden's. I find nothing particularly horrendous about that. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 You are missing the point. It was either their legislation, or previous legislation that was given them to rewrite, and what they came back with was as bad or worse constitutionally that the original. Really? Name a few such cases. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Police can do that in a lot of democracies, including the US, UK, France, Australia and Germany. Are they no longer democracies? Three of them are run by left wing governments. How does that reconcile with your fear of ideologically motivated legislation? The law doesn't allow that, and is considerably milder than what the socialists put in place in France recently. No, it simply expands the reasons why foreigners who come here can have their citizenship stripped. Yeah I hate to see that these people (ISIS, Al Qaeda .....) actually succeeding in their goals and what bugs me most is that most people likely like yourself don't even realize it. Their purpose was NOT to defeat the western democracy militarily. With all their stupidity and fanatism they know they can NEVER defeat west by military means but their goal WAS TO CHANGE OUR DEMOCRATIC WAY OF LIFE. They attack the night clubs and bars and democratic institutions. They are gradually destroying western democracies and Harper played into right into their hands by imposing bills like C-51 and C-24 ,,,,,,, (and some other western democracies which you listed did too). Edited February 9, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Really? Name a few such cases.I did in my previous post. Perhaps read before you respond. Quote
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) You mean appealing to people who don't want prostitutes working in the apartment next door, with a parade of johns, often drunk, moving up and down the halls. No one has a perfect solution to prostitution, but I haven't seen anything the Left in Canada has come out with which seems any likelier to please most Canadians. And while there were a number of irritants which the Canadian people didn't like about the Tories, the prostitution law was most definitely NOT one of them. The SC found the previous law - put in place by another government - illegal, so they came up with a new one based on Sweden's. I find nothing particularly horrendous about that. Don't you ever read my post responded to you???. You have posted these before in response to my earlier related posts a few months ago and I responded which you did not respond back (which I assumed you were satisfied with my responses) and here we are again!!!!!!!!. I said that Cities can bring by-laws to allow only in certain areas or zones (for example to exclude residential areas). And NO I meant appealing to religious fanatics. Those who think they have the word from God to impose their ideology upon the rest of the nation (the ones you oppose to in your posts but only when they are in the middle east). I also said that the New Zealand model of prostitution law has achieve significant success in that country and can be adopted as a model and this is not a model suggested by left or right but they had the safety of workers who are the most vulnerable in mind. I had explained in my post in details what this model is. While punishing pimps and abusive Johns it protects workers (no unprotected sex or activity or violence for example is allowed). I have also explained in part why C-36 is harmful to sex workers in post# 28. Edited February 9, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote
ReeferMadness Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 You mean appealing to people who don't want prostitutes working in the apartment next door, with a parade of johns, often drunk, moving up and down the halls. No, I actually mean appealing to people who don't want prostitution anywhere, anytime. Otherwise, they would agree to prostitution in certain zoned areas. No one has a perfect solution to prostitution, but I haven't seen anything the Left in Canada has come out with which seems any likelier to please most Canadians. And while there were a number of irritants which the Canadian people didn't like about the Tories, the prostitution law was most definitely NOT one of them. The SC found the previous law - put in place by another government - illegal, so they came up with a new one based on Sweden's. I find nothing particularly horrendous about that. I don't recall anyone describing the law as horrendous. Regressive, pointless, ineffective, unfair, harmful, condescending and stupid. But not horrendous. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
On Guard for Thee Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 . The SC found the previous law - put in place by another government - illegal, so they came up with a new one based on Sweden's. I find nothing particularly horrendous about that. Except the law Harper came up with was just as illegal. Quote
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Except the law Harper came up with was just as illegal. The previous laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada because the old laws jeopardized the safety of sex workers and Harper regime in retaliation and because of its contempt for the Supreme Court which is the Vanguard of constitution and democracy in this country brought in new laws, manipulated the debates in the parliament (by refusing to consult sex workers who were most affected and excluding them from speaking and only calling their own witnesses) and abusing their majority to push it through the parliament in spite of all advice they received against the bill just in order to please their own core support (the religious right) without consideration for the safety of citizens. The new laws are much worse than the old ones ruled unconstitutional by SCC!!!!!!!!!!!!. Liberals promised to repeal bill C-36. https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/ndp-liberals-greens-commit-to-repealing-anti-sex-work-law/ Do it or it will be a broken promise and they will lose my support if they don't soon!!!! Edited February 9, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 The previous laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada because the old laws jeopardized the safety of sex workers and Harper regime in retaliation and because of its contempt for the Supreme Court which is the Vanguard of constitution and democracy in this country brought in new laws, manipulated the debates in the parliament (by refusing to consult sex workers who were most affected and excluding them from speaking and only calling their own witnesses) and abusing their majority to push it through the parliament in spite of all advice they received against the bill just in order to please their own core support (the religious right) without consideration for the safety of citizens. The new laws are much worse than the old ones ruled unconstitutional by SCC!!!!!!!!!!!!. Liberals promised to repeal bill C-36. https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/ndp-liberals-greens-commit-to-repealing-anti-sex-work-law/ Do it or it will be a broken promise and they will lose my support if they don't soon!!!! I suspect they will do it. They do have a bunch of cleaning up to do as you are probably aware, so they will have to prioritize their agenda. Quote
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) I suspect they will do it. They do have a bunch of cleaning up to do as you are probably aware, so they will have to prioritize their agenda. Yes I do realize that as 10 years of Harperism caused so much damage that it is really hard and time consuming to clean up the mess left behind and that is why they still enjoying my strong support as apparent from all my posts but there is a limit to my timeline as it doesn't take that much time and efforts to repeal a few bills. Edited February 9, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote
Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Yeah I hate to see that these people (ISIS, Al Qaeda .....) actually succeeding in their goals and what bugs me most is that most people likely like yourself don't even realize it. Their purpose was NOT to defeat the western democracy militarily. With all their stupidity and fanatism they know they can NEVER defeat west by military means but their goal WAS TO CHANGE OUR DEMOCRATIC WAY OF LIFE. You give them far too much credit. They are not big on strategy. Their goals actually are as they say they are, to spread their version of Islam everywhere. And it doesn't matter that you think that is totally unrealistic. That's their goal. They don't care about our "democratic way of life" except that they want to change it to their way of life and make us all worship as they do. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Yes I do realize that as 10 years of Harperism caused so much damage that it is really hard and time consuming to clean up the mess left behind And yet you have failed to demonstrate this 'damage'. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Except the law Harper came up with was just as illegal. How was it just as illegal? I think it was telling that Ontario's Liberal premier blasted the law, and asked her attorney general to advise on the law's constitutionality and how they could avoid enforcing it if it was unconstitutional. Her attorney general said it looked pretty darned constitutional to her. Has a court decided otherwise? Edited February 9, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Yes I do realize that as 10 years of Harperism caused so much damage that it is really hard and time consuming to clean up the mess left behind and that is why they still enjoying my strong support as apparent from all my posts but there is a limit to my timeline as it doesn't take that much time and afford to repeal a few bills. I assume they are taking their time so as to get new laws worded right so as to comply with the charter. Quote
Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) No, I actually mean appealing to people who don't want prostitution anywhere, anytime. Otherwise, they would agree to prostitution in certain zoned areas. I don't have a huge problem with prostitution, but like anyone else I sure don't want it in my neighborhood bringing down property values and attracting the kind of men who are clients of prostitutes. Just where do you propose you could put it where local people wouldn't object? And if you put it too far from the city centres - where everyone lives - then the prostitutes will simply ignore these 'zones' anyway. Edited February 9, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 How was it just as illegal? I think it was telling that Ontario's Liberal premier blasted the law, and asked her attorney general to advise on the law's constitutionality and how they could avoid enforcing it if it was unconstitutional. Her attorney general said it looked pretty darned constitutional to her. Has a court decided otherwise? Basically it's illegal because it continued to try and make prostitution illegal. Banging head against wall is not very productive. Harper should have taken the time to read and understand our charter of rights. Quote
Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Don't you ever read my post responded to you???. Do you think I read every single post on every single topic every single day? I miss lots of stuff. I also said that the New Zealand model of prostitution law has achieve significant success in that country New Zealand is a tiny country, and I think your 'significant success' is debatable. From what I do know street prostitution continues and the majority of the voters are unhappy with this law. People do NOT want hookers working next door to them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Basically it's illegal because it continued to try and make prostitution illegal. Banging head against wall is not very productive. Harper should have taken the time to read and understand our charter of rights. Apparently Ontario's Attorney General didn't notice this. I wonder why that would be... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Apparently Ontario's Attorney General didn't notice this. I wonder why that would be... Perhaps his understanding of the constitution is as flawed as was Harpers. Quote
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Do you think I read every single post on every single topic every single day? I miss lots of stuff. New Zealand is a tiny country, and I think your 'significant success' is debatable. From what I do know street prostitution continues and the majority of the voters are unhappy with this law. People do NOT want hookers working next door to them. Well then read posts # 7, 26 and 28. They were responses to YOUR posts. No I don't believe street prostration is widespread or voters are unhappy not sure where you got all these. Read the attached link and many other links describing how safe and clean prostitution is in New Zealand. I am not an advocate of prostitution even I am against its legalization but it should be decriminalized to become safe and taxable. http://nypost.com/2015/05/21/why-sex-workers-love-their-jobs-in-new-zealand/ Edited February 9, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote
Special Delivery Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Although I think the TPP is priority no.1 for Trudeau's legal team, I think priority number 2 would be to investigate the $1Billion annual drug smuggling Harper allowed to take place on Canadian soil. A full House investigation is needed IMO related to this http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25539-would-you-prosecute-stephen-harper-for-concealing-drug-smuggling/ Priority no.3 is to distance defense commitments from America's until the yanks stop killing innocent people with drones that illegally fly into foreign airspace and kill only one alleged "terrorist" for every 39 innocent people killed in the same strikes. It is precisely these murders of innocent people that keeps fueling acts of family revenge which the U.S. conveniently labels as "terrorists". I think most Canadians are now hip to the labeling game. Quote
PIK Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 To bad the ministers did not know what they are doing? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 To bad the ministers did not know what they are doing? - youtube link c'mon MLW member PIK... anyone can drop a youtube link/vid - you don't include a single word of your own interpretation in what you're presenting! C"mon PIK, raise the bar! but imagine! A reshaped LilyPad... now one of the Rebel Commander's pursuer's of truth... trying to play 'word gotcha', no less! Say it ain't so MLW member PIK! of course, that to be repealed Harper Conservative Bill C-525 is much, much more than just the "secret ballot" that so-called journalist 'Brian Lilley' presumes to isolate on... presumes to play 'word gotcha' with. I'm shocked that Lilley wouldn't bother to mention that the bill actually makes the certification/decertification process more suspect and difficult... notwithstanding it lowers the initiating threshold levels from a majority (50%+1) to only 40% of the members of the bargaining unit. . Quote
Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Perhaps his understanding of the constitution is as flawed as was Harpers. Well, she is at least a lawyer. I'm going out on a limb and figure you aren't. So what makes your judgement anywhere near as good as hers? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Well then read posts # 7, 26 and 28. They were responses to YOUR posts. No I don't believe street prostration is widespread or voters are unhappy not sure where you got all these. Read the attached link and many other links describing how safe and clean prostitution is in New Zealand. I am not an advocate of prostitution even I am against its legalization but it should be decriminalized to become safe and taxable. http://nypost.com/2015/05/21/why-sex-workers-love-their-jobs-in-new-zealand/ All your cite says is sex workers are happy with New Zealand's new law. It says nothing about its effectiveness or what the rest of the population thinks. Where I got my information was a cursory look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand which says 66% of the population is unhappy with the prostitution laws. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.