Fixing What Harper Broke: A to-do list

On Guard for Thee · February 9, 2016

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?

Figure what you want. 200 legal experts wrote a letter to Harper telling him Bill c36 is actually worse than the law it sought to change which the SCC had already struck down. It is yet another thing on Trudeaus fix list.

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2014/07/23/harpers-prostitution-bill-c-36-offends-charter-legal-experts/

Argus · February 9, 2016

Figure what you want. 200 legal experts wrote a letter to Harper telling him Bill c36 is actually worse than the law it sought to change which the SCC had already struck down. It is yet another thing on Trudeaus fix list.

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2014/07/23/harpers-prostitution-bill-c-36-offends-charter-legal-experts/

It's pretty easy for a bunch of left wing lawyers to sign a petition. The fact that Ontario's very precious liberal government analyzed the law at the behest of its premier, who was opposed to it, and couldn't come with a rational reason as to why it was unconstitutional speaks rather louder to me.

CITIZEN_2015 · February 9, 2016

You keep on saying that Argus. The Attorney General of Ontario is not qualified by himself rule on the constitutionality of this bill. The Ontario premier also did not wish to pick a fight at the time with these gangsters. Refer the damn bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on this very likely unconstitutional bill which was pushed thought parliament in a very manipulative and deceptive manner typical of Harper and his stooges (MacKay) and is endangering the lives of the most vulnerable people who are citizens of this country.

Edited February 9, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

On Guard for Thee · February 9, 2016

It's pretty easy for a bunch of left wing lawyers to sign a petition. The fact that Ontario's very precious liberal government analyzed the law at the behest of its premier, who was opposed to it, and couldn't come with a rational reason as to why it was unconstitutional speaks rather louder to me.

I see, so the lawyers who wrote this disagree with you, so therefore they must be left wing lawyers, and the one that agrees with you must be correct. Gotcha.

Argus · February 10, 2016

You keep on saying that Argus. The Attorney General of Ontario is not qualified by himself rule on the constitutionality of this bill. The Ontario premier also did not wish to pick a fight at the time with these gangsters.

Are you kidding me? She's done nothing BUT pick fights with Harper since she got elected. She has little choice but to try to distract the electorate from the massive incompetence and corruption of her regime, and the many ways they have screwed Ontarions.

That being the case, she instantly picked a fight over the prostitution bill, and said that Ontario wouldn't enforce it if it was unconstitutional, then asked her attorney general to have the bill studied and report back on whether it was constitutional. That report said "Yes". Whereupon she was forced to shut up. I highly doubt the AG made the decision by herself. Her department made that determination.

So your contention that it is clearly unconstitutional is simply nonsense. If it was they'd have said so. They were certainly no friends of the federal tories.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Argus

Argus · February 10, 2016

I see, so the lawyers who wrote this disagree with you, so therefore they must be left wing lawyers, and the one that agrees with you must be correct. Gotcha.

Do you think it logical a bunch of right wing lawyers would criticize the government over a prostitution bill?

Further, some of the organizations they represent made it fairly clear where their politics lie.

The Ontario Attorney General would not have made this decision without input from her department, and she certainly wouldn't have made it if she'd had much choice.

CITIZEN_2015 · February 10, 2016

Are you kidding me? She's done nothing BUT pick fights with Harper since she got elected. She has little choice but to try to distract the electorate from the massive incompetence and corruption of her regime, and the many ways they have screwed Ontarions.

That being the case, she instantly picked a fight over the prostitution bill, and said that Ontario wouldn't enforce it if it was unconstitutional, then asked her attorney general to have the bill studied and report back on whether it was constitutional. That report said "Yes". Whereupon she was forced to shut up. I highly doubt the AG made the decision by herself. Her department made that determination.

So your contention that it is clearly unconstitutional is simply nonsense. If it was they'd have said so. They were certainly no friends of the federal tories.

It was Harper and his corrupt regime who was picking fights with Ontario premier NOT the other way round. In fact he refused to meet her for many months in spite of many requests.

I said it earlier one person cannot decide on the constitutionality of this bill but only a group of judges at the SUPREME COURT of CANADA. It is unconstitutional because the laws imposed by Harper and his stooges in the manipulative way they did is much worse than the laws already struck down and ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that they were jeopardizing the safety of sex workers. That was why the injustice minister MacKay refused to send the bill to SCC to test its constitutionality. Why is it so hard for you to understand, Would your conscious be clear when (and it is not a matter of if but when) God forbid a sex worker or many get killed because of these laws??? Read about Robert Pickton the bastard and how he took advantage of the old laws to slaughter so many innocent women. These laws (Bill C-36) are much worse and would take more victims in the future.

ps - I have issues posting on this forum recently (or saving) as it take a long time to save. Does anyone else have this issue??

Edited February 10, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

On Guard for Thee · February 10, 2016

Do you think it logical a bunch of right wing lawyers would criticize the government over a prostitution bill?

Further, some of the organizations they represent made it fairly clear where their politics lie.

The Ontario Attorney General would not have made this decision without input from her department, and she certainly wouldn't have made it if she'd had much choice.

You don't seem to understand the legal implications of our constitution and the role of the SCC to uphold it. It is a little complicated I know.

CITIZEN_2015 · February 10, 2016

You don't seem to understand the legal implications of our constitution and the role of the SCC to uphold it. It is a little complicated I know.

Exactly this. It is not provisional Attorney's General's job or qualifications to rule on the constitutionality pf a FEDERAL bill. It is Supreme Court's. REPEAL THE HARPER BILLS NOW AS THE LIBERALS PROMISED or send them to SCC for rulings on their constitutionality!!!!!.

Edited February 10, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

Argus · February 10, 2016

It was Harper and his corrupt regime who was picking fights with Ontario premier NOT the other way round. In fact he refused to meet her for many months in spite of many requests.

Why would he want to waste time giving the most incompetent premier in Canadian history the chance to whine about how she needs more money to make up for all the money her regime has stolen and wasted?

I said it earlier one person cannot decide on the constitutionality of this bill

If the Ontario LIBERAL AG and her department feel its constitutional then until and unless some court says otherwise we can presume it's constitutional.

It is unconstitutional because the laws imposed by Harper and his stooges in the manipulative way they did is much worse than the laws already struck down

This is nothing more than your completely uneducated opinion.

Argus · February 10, 2016

You don't seem to understand the legal implications of our constitution and the role of the SCC to uphold it. It is a little complicated I know.

You don't seem to understand that the constitutionality of a bill is not decided based on your feelings and emotions. Your position this is 'obviously' unconstitutional is one of ignorance.

If the Ontario Liberal government, having examined it, no doubt with the hopes it would actually be unconstitutional, says it isn't, then we'll just go with that until someone with more authority speaks on the subject.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Argus

CITIZEN_2015 · February 10, 2016

Why would he want to waste time giving the most incompetent premier in Canadian history the chance to whine about how she needs more money to make up for all the money her regime has stolen and wasted?

If the Ontario LIBERAL AG and her department feel its constitutional then until and unless some court says otherwise we can presume it's constitutional.

This is nothing more than your completely uneducated opinion.

Again you are responding without reading my responses. I said that it is NOT provincial AG job and qualifications to rule on a FEDERAL law. Our system has the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA designated for this task with right expertise. So why the Harper regime and his stooge MacKay refused to refer the bill to SCC for ruling and rammed it through the Parliament in such a manipulative deceptive manner. Because they know it would be defeated.

I let those readers who are unbiased and familiar with the process that bill C-36 went through to decide who here is having an uneducated opinion.

Argus · February 10, 2016

Again you are responding without reading my responses. I said that it is NOT provincial AG job and qualifications to rule on a FEDERAL law. Our system has the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA designated for this task with right expertise. So why the Harper regime and his stooge MacKay refused to refer the bill to SCC for ruling and rammed it through the Parliament in such a manipulative deceptive manner. Because they know it would be defeated.

I let those readers who are unbiased and familiar with the process that bill C-36 went through to decide who here is having an uneducated opinion.

Your premise is that the law is clearly constitutional, which is preposterous nonsense or the Ontario AG would have said so.

You clearly want prostitution completely legalized, for whatever reason, but most Canadians do not, and Trudeau is not about to take on the bad publicity and anger of the Canadian middle class by doing so.

CITIZEN_2015 · February 10, 2016

Your premise is that the law is clearly constitutional, which is preposterous nonsense or the Ontario AG would have said so.

You clearly want prostitution completely legalized, for whatever reason, but most Canadians do not, and Trudeau is not about to take on the bad publicity and anger of the Canadian middle class by doing so.

You clearly do not read my posts before responding. I said it is not Ontario's AG job to rule on the constitutionality of the federal bills but the Supreme Court in our democracy. I have also stated in my previous post that I am against legalization of prostitution (which either you did not read or chose to ignore to manipulate our debate). I clearly said I prefer decriminalization (of NZ model). Legalization may encourage prostitution and trafficking and drive many young girls into it and I am dead against all that. And I have said many times in almost all my posts why I am against bill C-36 (again clearly you chose to ignore this one because you could not have missed it as I said it in every related post) that this bill (for the reasons some of which I described in post # 28) would jeopardize the lives and safety of a sector of our society who are the most marginalized and vulnerable sector of our society (the sex workers estimated to be well over hundred thousand workers). Pickton's memory still fresh in my mind and the sex workers' unions have called bill C-36 new prostitution laws as Pickton's law. I am always defending the underdogs and vulnerable and you are trying to misrepresent my motives or create some motives for me falsely in order to discredit me. Shame.

Trudeau or his Liberal party has PROMISED to repeal this bill and they must keep their promises if they wish to continue to enjoy massive support that they enjoy now.

https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/ndp-liberals-greens-commit-to-repealing-anti-sex-work-law/

Why the hell I can't save my edited posts!!!!!!!!

Edited February 10, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

On Guard for Thee · February 10, 2016

You don't seem to understand that the constitutionality of a bill is not decided based on your feelings and emotions. Your position this is 'obviously' unconstitutional is one of ignorance.

If the Ontario Liberal government, having examined it, no doubt with the hopes it would actually be unconstitutional, says it isn't, then we'll just go with that until someone with more authority speaks on the subject.

That's right, it's decided by the majority interpretation of the sitting judges of the SCC. You're catching on though.

Big Guy · February 10, 2016

That's right, it's decided by the majority interpretation of the sitting judges of the SCC. You're catching on though.

I am optimistic that the governing process will revert to the common sense of the past. Any legislation that might be not pass the constitution test is shown to the Supreme Court for advice. Controversial legislation is presented as a "white paper" seeking comments from the public.

Legislation is broken up into workable parts, each part unique to the issue. It can then be debated by the opposition as to content and wording. That is what our system is supposed to do.

Governing is a slow process. It is tedious and time consuming on the front end which saves a lot of work in amendments and reversals on the back end when it is not properly vetted.

I am sure that the Conservative government believed that they were doing the right thing by ramming legislation through parliament but as they watch their laws reversed and changed, I hope they see the error of their ways and learn from their mistakes. They will probably form the next government in 4 or 8 or 12 years. They should learn from that lesson.

CITIZEN_2015 · February 10, 2016

I am sure that the Conservative government believed that they were doing the right thing by ramming legislation through parliament but as they watch their laws reversed and changed, I hope they see the error of their ways and learn from their mistakes. They will probably form the next government in 4 or 8 or 12 years. They should learn from that lesson.

I don't think so. They knew exactly what they are doing and that it was wrong and it was ideological based not evidence based. Many experts advised them against the Swedish model (C-36) and warned them of dangers it would pose to sex workers but they purposely chose to cover up surveys and as usual ignore experts and the constitution. They also knew it was unconstitutional that was why when asked, the injustice minster MacKay absolutely refused to refer the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada not to mention Harper's contempt for SCC. Why they did this? Because they wanted to appeal to their 25% core religious right support without which they had no chances of re-election.

Contrary to what Argus so falsely claims (as usual Argus makes false statements) a majority of Canadian actually support legalization of prostitution survey after survey and poll after poll (except one single survey conducted by MacKay which reminded me of fraudulent elections in dictatorships)

Here they are:

Only 24% want to prohibit paid sex between consenting adults

http://angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/2011.06.30_Prost_CAN.pdf

And cover ups

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sean-casey/peter-mackay-prostitution_b_5599753.html

And a good majority of Canadians oppose bill C-36. Only one-third support it (religious right or out of ignorance)

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/71/prostitution-should-be-legal-bill-c36-wrong/

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/new-poll-shows-canadians-dont-like-stephen-harpers-prostitution-bill-273

As for the Cons returning to government? Not in my lifetime. They messed up so bad that it will take a long time for voters to forget unless Mr. Trudeau start breaking promises (like repealing C-36) in which case votes would switch back to NDP.

Edited February 10, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

Argus · February 10, 2016

I don't think so. They knew exactly what they are doing and that it was wrong and it was ideological based not evidence based.

Drivel. Evidence based of what?

Contrary to what Argus so falsely claims (as usual Argus makes false statements) a majority of Canadian actually support legalization of prostitution

That isn't what's under discussion. Prostitution is ALREADY legal. This bill doesn't change that. What people don't want is hookers setting up brothels next door to them, and they'll scream bloody murder if that ever happens.

Argus · February 10, 2016

That's right, it's decided by the majority interpretation of the sitting judges of the SCC. You're catching on though.

And until that happens it's entirely constitutional, even if you're unhappy with it.

CITIZEN_2015 · February 11, 2016

That isn't what's under discussion. Prostitution is ALREADY legal. This bill doesn't change that. What people don't want is hookers setting up brothels next door to them, and they'll scream bloody murder if that ever happens.

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!! This time it is a crystal clear false statement (and if you make it knowingly then it is a lie). Prostitution WAS legal before Harper and his gang made prostitution ILLEGAL by ramming through bill C-36 in December 2014 in response to Supreme Court ruling which said banning on public solicitations and bawdy house rule puts the lives pf sex workers in danger and struck down the laws as unconstitutional as a result. Harper for his contempt of SCC and to please his core religious right support struck back by altogether making all aspects of prostitution illegal and criminal including paying for sex up to 5 year in jail as of December 2014 as well as advertising and communications via private media (not limited to public place anymore).

He imposed laws significantly worse than those already struck down as unconstitutional by Supreme Court. Sex workers are immune from prosecution though but cannot screen out violent or abusive clients as they refuse to provide personal info. Also clients can't report abused cases anymore like underage, abused or pimped sex workers for fear of persecution. Sex workers still can't communicate at certain places. Educate yourself Argus before making comments like this.Also you are covering up the false statement you made (that the majority of Canadians oppose legalization of prostitution) when I faced you with evidence to the contrary.

Drivel. Evidence based of what?

Okay you want evidence of why the old laws (and the much worse new ones) did or do then read this. Tragedy fueled by prostitution laws took 33 innocent lives in this single case who were citizens of this country and unless repealed soon I am afraid history may repeat itself and much worse.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/police-strategy-of-forcing-sex-workers-out-of-sight-helped-pickton-expert-says/article557250/

Edited February 11, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

Argus · February 11, 2016

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!

You want to maybe cut the histrionics?

This time it is a crystal clear false statement (and if you make it knowingly then it is a lie). Prostitution WAS legal before Harper and his gang made prostitution ILLEGAL by ramming through bill C-36

Prostitution is still legal.

Harper for his contempt of SCC and to please his core religious right support struck back by altogether making all aspects of prostitution illegal

Drivel.

.Also you are covering up the false statement you made (that the majority of Canadians oppose legalization of prostitution) when I faced you with evidence to the contrary.

I never said that.

Okay you want evidence of why the old laws (and the much worse new ones) did or do then read this. Tragedy fueled by prostitution laws took 33 innocent lives in this single case who were citizens of this country and unless repealed soon I am afraid history may repeat itself and much worse.

What you seem to be completely clueless about is that the law is not there to make prostitution more pleasant. Should we make robbery safer by legalizing it? After all, some people who rob wind up getting shot or beat up. Surely they need protection too... What about crack dealing? If we made that legal a lot fewer crack dealers would be hurt, you know.

On Guard for Thee · February 11, 2016

And until that happens it's entirely constitutional, even if you're unhappy with it.

Actually, no it's not. Not until it's tested by the SC.

cybercoma · February 11, 2016

That's right, it's decided by the majority interpretation of the sitting judges of the SCC. You're catching on though.

A majority of whom are Conservative appointees.

On Guard for Thee · February 11, 2016

A majority of whom are Conservative appointees.

That is quite true. And it is quite refreshing to note that, even if it was an attempt by Harper to stack the deck it didn't work, which speaks to the impartiality of our current legal scholars on that bench.

CITIZEN_2015 · February 11, 2016

I never said that.

LIAR. Then who is Argus below!!!!!!

You clearly want prostitution completely legalized, for whatever reason, but most Canadians do not,

Prostitution is still legal.

What you seem to be completely clueless about is that the law is not there to make prostitution more pleasant. Should we make robbery safer by legalizing it? After all, some people who rob wind up getting shot or beat up. Surely they need protection too... What about crack dealing? If we made that legal a lot fewer crack dealers would be hurt, you know.

Do you know how ridiculous you look like with statements like this? So people face jail term up to 5 years for exchange of money for sex because prostitution is legal!!!!!. Weird.

And you say that prostitution is the same as robbery or drug trafficking? in your words sex workers are same as robbers and drug traffickers. With backward uncaring state of mind like this no wonder you are a Harper conservative supporter.