NDP and LIBERAL sign petition AGAINST BILL C36

[squeezer]

http://ward27news.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/LetterToPremier03DEC14.pdf

Notice all the left wing politicians fighting the good fight and the lack of right wing wind bags!

Happ, dude you like to hobby, what are you going to do when Harper and Mackay run wild on you LMAO!!! Change sides while you still can vote and you're not a criminal.....yet.

 

[FAST]

http://ward27news.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/LetterToPremier03DEC14.pdf

Notice all the left wing politicians fighting the good fight and the lack of right wing wind bags!

Happ, dude you like to hobby, what are you going to do when Harper and Mackay run wild on you LMAO!!! Change sides while you still can vote and you're not a criminal.....yet.

Did you actually READ your link,...???

For one thing,...it does NOT mention johns in ANY way,...

And no,...I don't like the law,...but your statement that ALL of the listed politicians are left wing,...is rather miss leading.

FAST

 

[MPAsquared]

Did you actually READ your link,...???

For one thing,...it does NOT mention johns in ANY way,...

And no,...I don't like the law,...but your statement that ALL of the listed politicians are left wing,...is rather miss leading.

FAST

No, it refers to the entire bill to not be enforced & sent immediately to ontario's court of appeals for a constitutionality check. It goes on to say it will not enforce it if/and until it passes muster.

Johns incl.

 

[squeezer]

Did you actually READ your link,...???

For one thing,...it does NOT mention johns in ANY way,...

And no,...I don't like the law,...but your statement that ALL of the listed politicians are left wing,...is rather miss leading.

FAST

Try reading it again but this time remove your REFORM PARTY at all cost blinders and maybe you'll be enlightened.

 

[Butler1000]

I don't see a single federal politician there. Just city council.

Until Trudeau and Munclair clearly state they would repeal it then they are going along with it.

The title is as false as anything Happ or Boodog would put up. You sure you want to be in their company?

 

[squeezer]

I don't see a single federal politician there. Just city council.

Until Trudeau and Munclair clearly state they would repeal it then they are going along with it.

The title is as false as anything Happ or Boodog would put up. You sure you want to be in their company?

Yes this is the municipal left but I've posted other articles which show Liberal and NDP support to quash Bill C36. The Liberal base DO NOT support criminalizing prostitution as opposed to the Neo Con base who want to abolish the oldest profession. You who definitely enjoy the hobby should be able to admit, put your partisanship hat aside and admit the Reform Party is not a friend of the consensual sex industry.

 

[boodog]

I don't see a single federal politician there. Just city council.

Until Trudeau and Munclair clearly state they would repeal it then they are going along with it.

The title is as false as anything Happ or Boodog would put up. You sure you want to be in their company?

Hey I read that.

 

[nottyboi]

Well city of Toronto councilllors tend to lean more left then right...even the right wing ones. But it is nice to see a letter like this and some courage shown by our councillors. I was surprised to see Mark Grimes name there, he tends to be a bit right wing, but even he has some left wing tendencies.

 

[FAST]

OK,...so now we are saying that selling sex is a left wing concept,...???

Once again,...I don't agree with the law,...but NOTHING in that letter indicates what the undersigned would change,...especially regarding "purchasing" sex.

FAST

 

[nottyboi]

OK,...so now we are saying that selling sex is a left wing concept,...???

Once again,...I don't agree with the law,...but NOTHING in that letter indicates what the undersigned would change,...especially regarding "purchasing" sex.

FAST

You don't think referral to the courts and suspending enforcement until judicial review won't change anything? If they are asking for a judicial review what do you think that might mean? hmmmmmm come you are Fast!! you can make that mental LEAP of logic!!! COme boy, you can do it!!!

 

[Aardvark154]

This letter is a request, those who signed it have no authority as regards Criminal Law whatsoever. Perhaps more important is do you believe that the Premier is going to give it any more consideration than to other letters on the same topic, and or actually suspend enforcement?

 

[squeezer]

You don't think referral to the courts and suspending enforcement until judicial review won't change anything? If they are asking for a judicial review what do you think that might mean? hmmmmmm come you are Fast!! you can make that mental LEAP of logic!!! COme boy, you can do it!!!

No he can't!

This letter is a request, those who signed it have no authority as regards Criminal Law whatsoever. Perhaps more important is do you believe that the Premier is going to give it any more consideration than to other letters on the same topic, and or actually suspend enforcement?

So we are suppose to then close our eyes and elect the same government that has brought this disaster of a law upon us?? I don't think so, they deserve to be turfed out and decimated as a party.

 

[nottyboi]

This letter is a request, those who signed it have no authority as regards Criminal Law whatsoever. Perhaps more important is do you believe that the Premier is going to give it any more consideration than to other letters on the same topic, and or actually suspend enforcement?

Who knows, she is the first openly lesbian Premier of Ontario. She will probably consult the attorney general and since Steven Harper is treating her like a nobody and refuses to meet with her, maybe she will pull the trigger on this to deliver a huge embarrassment to him right in the middle of an election cycle. If they wrote the letter, there were probably some back channel communications already. You think any of these bozos stick their neck out? Imagine if both her and the Premier of Quebec act together with boy wonder and basically reduce his legislation to toilet paper.

 

[FAST]

You don't think referral to the courts and suspending enforcement until judicial review won't change anything? If they are asking for a judicial review what do you think that might mean? hmmmmmm come you are Fast!! you can make that mental LEAP of logic!!! COme boy, you can do it!!!

I don't know,...you are the self proclaimed "expert" on the subject,...you tell me,...what will the out come, changes be to the law after a review,...

Bearing in mind,...assuming you actually read it,...the letter signers are asking to review whether or not it is constitutional,...

Are you actually dumb enough to think that the courts are going to say that outlawing pimping is not constitutional,...???

And if you think that suspending enforcement is going to happen while waiting for a review,...your are an even bigger idiot.

As far as "logic" goes,..your post is anything but,...and not unexpected.

FAST

 

[nottyboi]

I don't know,...you are the self proclaimed "expert" on the subject,...you tell me,...what will the out come, changes be to the law after a review,...

Bearing in mind,...assuming you actually read it,...the letter signers are asking to review whether or not it is constitutional,...

Are you actually dumb enough to think that the courts are going to say that outlawing pimping is not constitutional,...???

And if you think that suspending enforcement is going to happen while waiting for a review,...your are an even bigger idiot.

As far as "logic" goes,..your post is anything but,...and not unexpected.

FAST

They already said outlawing pimping is not constitutional in their last ruling.. fuck!!!, is calling yourself "Fast" ironic humor? WTF!!!:frusty:

Kinda funny that you would accuse me of claiming to be some kind of expert... then go ahead and render your own opinions.. do you even see how that is ironic?

 

[Insidious Von]

Has this bill gone through the House of Commons yet?

I suspect that it may become unenforceable. Ontario, Quebec and BC will not deffer to Alberta and Saskatchewan social conservatives. Harper has enough on his plate figuring out how to keep the Oil Sands viable. Also the rising cost of the anti-ISIS mission and Julian Fantino being the gift that keeps on giving; the cons may not want to stir the pot further.

Let's wait and see.

 

[EldrickWoods]

It's tough position to be in . Fiscally I like the low tax, lower spending approach, but I'm sad it comes at a cost of Personal liberty and freedom. No one wants a Government Daddy in their bedroom. The law is overbearing and too far reaching. It turns law abiding citizens into criminals even when it's clear the situation is two consenting adults engaging in a sensual transaction.

They're making a moral judgement call on what OTHER people should and shouldn't do with their own bodies, time and money.

Did you actually READ your link,...???

For one thing,...it does NOT mention johns in ANY way,...

And no,...I don't like the law,...but your statement that ALL of the listed politicians are left wing,...is rather miss leading.

FAST

 

[squeezer]

Has this bill gone through the House of Commons yet?

DUDE, it passed...it's law....it takes effect tomorrow!

Remember this day in 2015 and help in making this moralistic government pay at the polls!

Excellent post Eldrick, my feelings exactly.

 

[nottyboi]

It's tough position to be in . Fiscally I like the low tax, lower spending approach, but I'm sad it comes at a cost of Personal liberty and freedom. No one wants a Government Daddy in their bedroom. The law is overbearing and too far reaching. It turns law abiding citizens into criminals even when it's clear the situation is two consenting adults engaging in a sensual transaction.

They're making a moral judgement call on what OTHER people should and shouldn't do with their own bodies, time and money.

Lower spending? Conservatives have spent FAR more then the Libs they replaced...including squandering the surplus they were handed resulting in years of deficits.

 

[FAST]

They already said outlawing pimping is not constitutional in their last ruling.. fuck!!!, is calling yourself "Fast" ironic humor? WTF!!!:frusty:

Kinda funny that you would accuse me of claiming to be some kind of expert... then go ahead and render your own opinions.. do you even see how that is ironic?

(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

NOT my opinion,...always has been the case.

So you are saying that pimping cannot be outlawed because,...???

FAST