Harper wants to make prostitution illegal

[dreamer]

flows from the ultra-liberal feminist ranks.

exactly, plus conservative ones

What I worry about is a Harper majority that would table and pass the recommendations because it was technically recommended by a bi-partisan group of MPs. The scenario is perfect because they can pass it and blame the other parties.

 

[Papi Chulo]

Maybe I will have to change my vote to the Green Party

 

[drlove]

If it can be come law in Sweden, it can become law here also.

Interesting. If that's the case, and if it were to become law in Canada, would it be a fair assessment to say that escort agencies as we know them will be driven out of business??

 

[Aardvark154]

flows from the ultra-liberal feminist ranks.

exactly, plus conservative ones

If by that you mean feminists who are members of the Conservative Party. I suppose I agree with you. Although I believe there are probably fewer of the real "men are pigs" types, than in the ranks of the Liberals and the NDP. So in that respect, I revert to my previous post.

 

[Aardvark154]

What I worry about is a Harper majority that would table and pass the recommendations because it was technically recommended by a bi-partisan group of MPs. The scenario is perfect because they can pass it and blame the other parties.

However, do you think the Liberals and the Bloc (and the NDP) would vote for it?

I hasten to add that I think it’s a bit far fetched. I'm not sure that H.M. Government really wants to get into the business of passing legislation that is promptly repealed as soon as they become the Opposition whenever that is, whether it be a year or decades.

 

[dreamer]

However, do you think the Liberals and the Bloc (and the NDP) would vote for it?

I am talking about if the conservatives get a majority in the next election, which will probably be in the spring one way or another.

 

[Never Compromised]

The way you guys sound is like a guy complaining that Jews are mistreated so lets vote for Hitler. (Btw Hitler was a Socialist)

***

Personally this paper fantasy of names and borders you call a State, has no right to interfere with my dynasty, my finances or my Religious beliefs. That is conservatism.

First point, Hitler was with the National Socialist Party, but the party was a fascist state, not a socialist state as you have suggested.

Secondly, the political philosophy your are expousing is called liberalism. Not conservatism. Liberalism has as its champions Hobbes (in the state of nature, life is nasty brutish and short) John Locke, Bentham James Mill and John Stuart Mill.

Classical liberalism suggests giving as much liberty to the individual as possible, as long as that liberty does not affect others in their lawful pursuits. The state is seen as a neutral arbitrator, and is not involved in social welfare.

Conservatism, on the other hand, is much more paternalistic in nature and tries to make sure that the social order is regimented.

A political party name is just a name, not a statement of ideology. Just like "Chrysal Springs Water" is just a name (the bottled water is filtered from the municipal supply)

 

[Never Compromised]

Now how does Compromised come up with a subject line that blames Harper for this? Looks to me as if the bipartisan committee is behind this.

A) I wanted to ensure discussion

B) this will become law only with the explicit support of Harper. Given what he is doing on other social issues, I have a feeling that this may very well see the light of day in the House.

 

[thompo69]

The Senate was mentioned earlier too. That’s a bit of a stretch. Honestly, has the Senate–being an unelected body in Canada–ever not approved legislation brought forward by an elected government? I personally can’t remember when they’ve not approved legislation.

Well, yes -- the Senate has refused to pass bills. It is not something that happens very often, and they are more likely to use other tactics to correct problem legislation -- such as amending it, or merely delaying it.

 

[Aardvark154]

As another poster outlined, it has a long way to go before it becomes law. However, it could be adopted by a conservative caucus in a heartbeat, if they see a majority government in an election. Why do I suggest that? Because, the committee that drafted the report was briefed by all the standard “conservative” support groups of choice: different authority agencies across the country, etc., etc. (read the report, all the groups that participated in the briefing sessions were identified in the closing section of the document). Therefore, it wouldn’t be a stretch for a majority government to accept the report as well researched, and supported by key interest groups within the community.

Finally, I think everyone’s missing the point to a certain degree. The committee is suggesting that they’re really trying to stop “sex slavery” and the exploitation that’s currently taking place in Canada. I suggest that this is a really good excuse, and a Trojan horse, to take a run at the entire sex industry at large, and put it out of business. Think about it – the sex industry is not even 50% populated by immigrants in Canada. Many sex workers are Canadian born and bred, and they become involved in the industry by choice. Moreover, many of the immigrant workers come here by their own free will, and they become involved in the industry by choice. I’d say that genuine “sex slavery” is a very low percentage of the actual sex trade population in Canada.

Tmhotspot, I believe we actually agree quite a bit on this if you reread my first post. This is driven in great measure by the Chimera of "sex slavery."

In the U.S. this has with the aid of "women's groups" even reached the point where the native born spouses of foreign born women are looked at askance by the Federal Government as some how sexual degenerates and involved in the trafficking of women who must be protected from these monsters.

For instance Senator Cantwell's International Marriage Broker Protection Act, wich purports to "regulate" internet introduction agencies also makes it so that if you've been married three times to a foreign born woman - too bad so sad - your fourth wife isn't coming to the U.S. While personally I think if I marry again for a second time and strike out again I'm not going to come back for a third bite - where does the U.S. Government get off playing Big Brother? AsTmhotspot alluded to - the “secret” of this sort of report/legislation is to make it look like you've got all sorts of great statistical evidence - but carefully make sure that your witnesses all have the proper viewpoint. This piece of current U.S. law was motivated by two ghastly murders in the State of Washington, two murders out of how many spousal/fiancée immigrants? And this shows that there is a hidden epidemic of domestic violence against foreign born spouses? This may not be making the greatest of sense, it’s late and it’s a complex subject that it’s hard to do justice to in a couple of paragraphs. However as I quoted before from Martin Niemöller: “Then they came for the Catholics, but I was a Protestant so I did not speak out. And then when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php

 

[Never Compromised]

No matter who you vote in, it's all the farking same....... they are all privileged older white men who have NO concept of the average persons needs or wants. Politics is one big game of ass kissing and name dropping.

Personally I find no crime in two consenting adults doing whatever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms (and maybe living rooms and kitchens if one wants to get kinky). This is a big fat waste of time and money. I think someone in parliment needs a proper blowjob.

Firstly, voting for different parties does create different policies. If you don't believe me, look at the NDP in Ontario in the 90's and then look at what Mike Harris did.

As for your assertion that all politicians are "privileged older white men" I strongly suggest that you start reading various newspapers. I think you will find that politicians are far more diverse than you suggest.

I also suggest that if you want to have a larger voice in the system, you stop bitching about how terrible politicians are and join a political party and have your voice heard.

Democracy does not work well if your only involvement is on election day.

 

[papasmerf]

Firstly, voting for different parties does create different policies. If you don't believe me, look at the NDP in Ontario in the 90's and then look at what Mike Harris did.

As for your assertion that all politicians are "privileged older white men" I strongly suggest that you start reading various newspapers. I think you will find that politicians are far more diverse than you suggest.

I also suggest that if you want to have a larger voice in the system, you stop bitching about how terrible politicians are and join a political party and have your voice heard.

Democracy does not work well if your only involvement is on election day.

The problrm with liberals is te fear of change. They tend to think anything contrary to liberal belief is bad. I do pitty those who are so blind

 

[The Daulfin]

This assertion was supported recently by the Pinky bust in BC. If you’ve heard about that large bust in BC recently, then you’ll know that the authorities received a bit of a surprise. They took down “Pinky” of Richmond, and shipped her girls back to Korea. Over $2M in property was seized; Pinky’s no doubt facing 5-10 in irons at the big house; and the CRA will make her life a nightmare from this point forward. Therefore, she really has no life left (the CRA will find and seize any offshore assets too, or accounts, within the next 18 months to 2yrs in order to clear up what they see as potential back taxes). However, and this is my point, the media stated specifically that the girls were working here by choice! They were not sex slaves! Slavery and exploitation are constantly used to attack the industry. However, it’s rarely the case.

My opinion of the above is that assuming the girls were here illegally and "Pinky" was avoiding her taxes (and she obviously was breaking procurement laws), then everything done is justified under the current set of laws. Just like was written in the Gazette, the laws we already have are more than up to the task of fighting sex slavery and this new threat of making purchasing illegal is merely a direct attack on the industry on a "moral" judgement (despite the fact most Canadian likely could care less so long as it is consenting adults and behind closed doors).

Personally, I don't think making pruchasing illegal will ultimately change things significantly. You would still be able to agree on price, meet and then "forget" an envelope marked "TERB advertising" when things are done and not report it missing or stolen (and anyone being a wiseass reporting it would only be openning themselves to the new charges for purchasing once the lady who is doing no wrong in accepting payment openned her mouth). You wouldn't be paying her for anything in the technical sense and any charges attempted would be a straight charge to a constitutional challenge that we all could get behind.

 

[David Beckham 23]

The problrm with liberals is te fear of change. They tend to think anything contrary to liberal belief is bad. I do pitty those who are so blind

And conservative love change?

 

[papasmerf]

And conservative love change?

Actualy we do. change is good

 

[dreamer]

The problrm with liberals is te fear of change. They tend to think anything contrary to liberal belief is bad. I do pitty those who are so blind

Do you actually think before you write such dribble

 

[David Beckham 23]

Actualy we do. change is good

If it was up to many conservatives, blacks and women would never have been aloud to vote, and gays wouldn't have any rights.

 

[papasmerf]

since you feel that`way, you should withdraw from terb

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

If it was up to many conservatives, blacks and women would never have been aloud to vote, and gays wouldn't have any rights.

......and advertising firms in Montreal would have less clients.

Civil rights isn't solely a Liberal agenda. They just like to take ownership of it.

 

[papasmerf]

......and advertising firms in Montreal wouldn't have any clients.

Civil rights isn't solely a Liberal agenda. They just like to take ownership of it.

DO NOT TRY TO CONVINCE A LIBERAL THAT CONSERVITIVES HAVE RIGHTS. You would have an easier time convincing a liberal that taxes are illegal.