Or they care more about the economy than getting their rocks off.
I'm no fan of any of the leaders, but I hate the idea of us running 11-digit deficits in non-recessionary times. Hugely irresponsible.
More than 200 charges laid in organized crime, human trafficking investigation: YRP
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
I'm no fan of any of the leaders, but I hate the idea of us running 11-digit deficits in non-recessionary times. Hugely irresponsible.
Man how times have changed. It was never an issue of who to vote for when it was the women who were criminalized, arrested, lives destroyed, children removed, etc.
Not that I am happy about men now being criminalized, I am happy that men finally see just what and who their vote affects. I know tons of men who always vote economically and trust me, I get the reasons, but now you see the other side of that cost and now you can at least think more about your choice.
As far as the thread topic, good on YRP for busting this ring open.
Not that I am happy about men now being criminalized, I am happy that men finally see just what and who their vote affects. I know tons of men who always vote economically and trust me, I get the reasons, but now you see the other side of that cost and now you can at least think more about your choice.
As far as the thread topic, good on YRP for busting this ring open.
If a SW, charging 500$/hour, has to take Uber to get to the outcall she has been trafficked. The abolitionists couldn't eliminate the oldest profession known as prostitution. So what to do? Change the name to trafficking. I am cynical about this. Many times we have seen this as a marketing trick to get funding and to justify a waste of public resources."Human Trafficking" seems have replaced the words "prostitution" in the arsenal of fighting the sex trade of late. (It's hard to argue against human trafficking and now it seems that every sex worker is a victim who has been trafficked.)
The term "Human Trafficking" is a far more incendiary term than prostitution and congers up images of someone who is literally being sold into slavery. (And that may indeed be the case, who knows, however, it just could be a good old fashioned bust in the sex trade with women who are completely agreeable to selling sex. .
You mean like good old Doug Ford raising salaries 14% on some of the top earners plus bonuses while telling teachers they must be capped at 1% as they are going into negotiations with the teacher's union? How big is his cabinet, didn't he rail on Wynne needing to slash her cabinet? Doug's being hugely irresponsible don't you think?Or they care more about the economy than getting their rocks off.
I'm no fan of any of the leaders, but I hate the idea of us running 11-digit deficits in non-recessionary times. Hugely irresponsible.
This is very true as well, sadly. There has absolutely been a very deliberate attempt to rebrand sex work. It’s insidious because when you use such a loaded term as “human trafficking”, it makes it very hard to debate you. Any arguments, by default, then appear to be supporting trafficking, which of course is not the case, since human trafficking is an absolutely monstrous thing and anyone who engages in it should be castrated with a rusty spoon and given a one-way ticket to club pound-me-in-the-ass, as far as I’m concerned. Frankly, it’s an incredibly underhanded tactic and trivializes the horrors actual victims of trafficking have had to endure.If a SW, charging 500$/hour, has to take Uber to get to the outcall she has been trafficked. The abolitionists couldn't eliminate the oldest profession known as prostitution. So what to do? Change the name to trafficking. I am cynical about this. Many times we have seen this as a marketing trick to get funding and to justify a waste of public resources.
But that’s the playbook of these activist types. Victory no matter the cost.
Let’s be honest here: there is no such thing as a fiscally responsible politician. They all waste tons of money on stupid things, it’s all just a matter of whether or not you approve of (or at least can tolerate) the specific stupid things that particular politician wastes money on.You mean like good old Doug Ford raising salaries 14% on some of the top earners plus bonuses while telling teachers they must be capped at 1% as they are going into negotiations with the teacher's union? How big is his cabinet, didn't he rail on Wynne needing to slash her cabinet? Doug's being hugely irresponsible don't you think?
Trudeau has had four years to change the laws and make buying sex legal and he hasn't done it either.Man how times have changed. It was never an issue of who to vote for when it was the women who were criminalized, arrested, lives destroyed, children removed, etc.
Not that I am happy about men now being criminalized, I am happy that men finally see just what and who their vote affects. I know tons of men who always vote economically and trust me, I get the reasons, but now you see the other side of that cost and now you can at least think more about your choice.
As far as the thread topic, good on YRP for busting this ring open.
Here's the Conservative platform. Can't find anything about sex work...I don’t think anyone was really saying that. I think it’s pretty well understood that this was a legitimate bust that got some pretty monstrous people off the streets. I think the point, however misplaced, was simply that supporting Scheer if you’re a hobbyist is a risky proposition. I do agree that that point isn’t really relevant to this situation.
Also, I must correct myself, I said it was section 120 of the Conservative platform that deals with sex work. It was section 112.
https://cpc-platform.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/CPC_Platform_8.5x11_FINAL_EN_OCT14_web.pdf
It’s in here: https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03154936/00477c06063465c.pdfHere's the Conservative platform. Can't find anything about sex work...
https://cpc-platform.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/CPC_Platform_8.5x11_FINAL_EN_OCT14_web.pdf
True. He also hasn’t enforced C-36, though.Trudeau has had four years to change the laws and make buying sex legal and he hasn't done it either.
Yup.
Vote for Scheer and you better shut down your account here.
112. Sexual Exploitation in Canada
The Conservative Party rejects the concept of legalizing the purchase of
sex. We declare that human beings are not objects to be enslaved, bought
or sold.
We shall develop a Canada specific plan to target the purchasers of sex and human trafficking
markets through criminalizing the purchase of sex as well as the acts of any third party attempting
to profit from the purchase of sex.
He doesn't enforce the law, the police do and there have been a number of charges laid under this law and will continue to be as long as it is in place.True. He also hasn’t enforced C-36, though.
Fair enough. I just meant that Justin hasn’t really done anything to make the laws even more restrictive whereas Scheer very well may. I do agree that Justin could’ve and should’ve decriminalized sex work, but he’s an idiot so I’m not terribly surprised.
Ok, I never said he was the one to vote for either.Trudeau has had four years to change the laws and make buying sex legal and he hasn't done it either.
But you have to think, the laws as they are now, you are still able to get away with hobbying. Police seem to enforcing underage and traffickers. So you still have room to hobby without being arrested.
Just like the bear was poked and forced the laws to change for the negative of men, voting in a party that wants to make it even harder then it is now, may not be the party you want either.
It is a pick the lesser of two evils.
Exactly. Justin is an idiot, but he’s the idiot we know. I really feel the best thing to do here is to maintain the status quo, and hopefully next election we get a more preferable alternative.Ok, I never said he was the one to vote for either.
But you have to think, the laws as they are now, you are still able to get away with hobbying.
Just like the bear was poked and forced the laws to change for the negative of men, voting in a party that wants to make it even harder then it is now, may not be the party you want either.
It is a pick the lesser of two evils.
True, but Scheer is a social conservative. I feel likely it wasn’t included in the platform because it simply wasn’t necessary. It’s just not an issue that’s on enough people’s radars to warrant inclusion. Again, I’m not saying 100% that Scheer absolutely will make things worse, but it is a distinct possibility. We already know Justin won’t touch it with a 40-foot pole one way or another.
Which is sad because he did have it on his platform last election when he won and this past spring it was on the agenda for their convention.TWe already know Justin won’t touch it with a 40-foot pole one way or another.
They all fucking suck as options to vote for to be honest.
Very true. And as I’ve said before, sometimes when faced with no good option, the best thing you can do is to not choose at all. Keep the status quo, it’s not ideal, but it’s workable, and maybe next time we’ll get someone less objectionable.Which is sad because he did have it on his platform last election when he won and this past spring it was on the agenda for their convention.
They all fucking suck as options to vote for to be honest.
This is also true. By and large, I didn’t mind Harper that much. Scheer is not Harper, though. He’s an unknown factor. He might do nothing at all, he might make things significantly worse for us. We just don’t know. With Justin, we do. We know he’ll do nothing and things will be the same as they are now. Just depends on if you’re willing to make that gamble.Yes, but Harper was also a social conservative (Alliance Church - a very evangelical and conservative denomination) but for the most part he left social conservative issues alone, aside from letting some of his socon backbenchers vent in Parliament every now and then. But C-36 was one of the very few socon moves the Conservatives made when they got their majority in 2011 and even then they passed it knowing that ultimately it wasn't up to them to enforce it - it was up to the provinces, who would probably have other priorities than finding a way to lay charges against Jessica's clients. (Just using you as an example, Jessica.) I mean if there's low-hanging fruit out there who could be easily charged, it's probably every escort agency in the country - who do advertise their girls, and then put on their website with a straight face that "money exchanged is for companionship only. Anything else that occurs is a matter of choice between two consenting adults." But aside from Fantasy World in London I'm not aware of any advertising charges having been laid against an agency. There were some charges (also in London) against a couple (not sure if they were running an agency or simply trying to become pimps by recruiting girls) for placing ads recruiting young women into the sex industry by telling them it would be modelling or entertainment. I believe that was technically a procurement charge. I'd be interested to hear of other examples of agencies being charged under either the advertising or procurement sections of the law.
