Some, but I'm skeptical. Seems like smith is defending an entrenched position. The dippers have been more definitive in their position than the libs. Regardless, perhaps it's wishful thinking because the dippers don't have a viable shot at forming. The government anytime soon.
Our future after C36 passes?
- Thread starter krazyplayer
- Start date
Some, but I'm skeptical. Seems like smith is defending an entrenched position. The dippers have been more definitive in their position than the libs. Regardless, perhaps it's wishful thinking because the dippers don't have a viable shot at forming. The government anytime soon.
Read the post I quoted then read mine again. The sad thing is you WERE being serious
You the same guy who wants his terb account nuked when the new law passes? as if they can arrest you for posting on here LOL
Bad laws shouldn't be obeyed or respected.
Yep, that be me. I'm not deep into this "hobby" thing so I don't care about my Terb account if I feel LE is going to be crawling all over and this time around, with a new law in effect.
We can't choose what laws to ignore - I don't like 46% marginal tax rate in the Income Tax Act either but I have to deal with it. I can't get anything repealed and by continuing to live in this country, I agree to abide by all its laws. That's how the system works.
It's not a question of liking a law or not. It's a question of a law being clearly illegal and in violation of people's right. I don't like paying my taxes but I understand the reason for it, therefore I accept it. But if tax laws were enforced to the same extent as prostitution laws, no one would pay their taxes. :biggrin1:
Funnily enough, that's the same logic used by the Freeman of the Land to argue that they are not subject to income taxes, firearms laws or basically any other law promulgated by our illegal government.
An illegal law is an oxymoron. If it is indeed found to be illegal by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is no longer law.
We can choose to violate what we believe is an unjust law. But make no mistake, you would still be breaking the law. If that's what you want to do, that's your prerogative (and the consequences are yours to bear). Nothing wrong with that course of action. History is replete with examples (Rosa Parks, the Underground Railway, the Holocaust, etc).
Another way to defeat an unjust law is to challenge the system itself through judicial activism. Still another is to change the system from within (running for office, anyone?).
Whatever you do, let's not put down someone else's choice on how they want to behave. Just because you want to march down Yonge street with your dick hanging out to protest C36 doesn't make you a better person than another guy who stays behind the scene and contributes time, money or expertise to pull judicial or political levers.
Not now, but once Bil C-36 comes into effect & you pay for sexual services. If you pay for time, instead, then you're legal.
A large percentage of Canadians are already criminals, such as:
"1.5 million Canadian citizens now have criminal records for possession of cannabis."
John Howard Society - Canadian Cannabis Policy - Factsheet 1 - 2002
http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/info_statistics.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marij...-turning-a-blind-eye-to-pot-charges-1.2733396
Having a criminal record does not hinder one from travel, except to a handful of countries, perhaps:
Effect of Criminal Records on Travel
http://www.nclt.com.au/
As mentioned in the video clip, the charge is a misdemeanor charge and can easily be dealt with by issuing a ticket as in a littering charge. The sheriffs department is out for publicity because the sheriffs in the US are elected like politicians and need to show that they are doing their jobs to be re-elected. The $150 - $200 fines they generated in these stings per charge does not cover the 5 person sheriffs department manpower cost. There is also paperwork that has to be done in each case as well as court time for the police officers to testify. The lives of these men are ruined, they can easily be identified by the shape of their bodies and the sound of their voices in the videos.
It's likely Americans are more "revolutionary" in that regard than Canadians:
"A 1998 poll suggested 7% of Canadian men have paid for sex at least once in their life.[41]
This is much lower than in the United States, where in 1994, 18% of men stated they had paid
for sex[42] and 15% in 2004.[43] However, these polls cannot be directly compared because
the questions asked in each were not identical....
"In 2003-4, 68% of women were found guilty once charged compared to 30% for men....
"In 2012, 21% of respondents to an Ipsos Reid poll (1,004 adults between March 30 and April 1)
strongly agreed and 44% somewhat agreed that prostitution in brothels should be legal, while
20% strongly disagreed and 15% somewhat disagreed (65 for, 35 against). 75 per cent of men
and 56 per cent of women agreed. All age groups and all regions agreed, although there was
regional variation[82][83]
"Following introduction of amending legislation in June 2014, an Angus Reid poll (1,007 adults
between June 6 and 7) showed that 45% thought buying sex should be legal, 45% that it should
be illegal, and 11% were undecided. 51% believed selling sex should be legal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Canada
The legality of a law passed by the people's representatives is determined by the judicial branch of the Government. If the SC lets this stand, would you go rogue and become a revolutionary?
By the way: tax law enforcement is the harshest in Canada. Check out the named and shamed that CRA so proudly lists as offenders for offenses as small as $7000.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/cnvctns/menu-eng.html
Similar threads
