I take it that you’re a strong supporter of the Libertarian Party, for as far as I know they are the only party in Canada that wants to end all the outdated laws regarding prostitution. As, they are not running in my ridding, they are not an option for me. Still, if you feel this strongly about prosititution and they are running in your riding, you should vote for them.beerbelly said:
Who Will You Vote For??
- Thread starter drlove
- Start date
What are you talking about?slowpoke said:
1. Are you suggesting that the members of the Conservative party suddenly "materialised" out of thin air in 2004, having never been in politics before? I assure you, most of the 100 or so current MPs in the Conservative Party have been in Parliament for many, many years (especially those "dangerous" Westerners). And they have probably always been "conservative" (a persuasion, not a party).
And yes, some of them even date back to the Mulroney/Clark PC's (which, at well over a decade ago, should probably count as "many years ago").
2. Any "conservative" MP (again a persuasion, either in the PC, Reform, Alliance, or Conservative parties... or heck, even as an independent) could have raised the issue at any time; with or without their party approval; with or without their party in government. THAT is the point. If any one of the several dozen MPs (that have indeed been in Parliament for many years) WANTED to make prostitution an issue, any one of them could have. But they didn't. Not one in the Mulroney era (or before). Nor either of the Clark periods. Nor the Campbell/Charest/Mackay days. Not during Manning's time. Not in the Day period. Not while Harper has been there. Not any leader, minister, critic, or back benchers. Not one of them.
So, suggesting that the "conservatives" (a persuasion, not a Party) are NOW suddenly starting a crusade to change the prostitution laws under the Conservative Party banner is idiotic.
But then again, most of what the Liberals accuse them of falls under that category.
3. Do you believe that members of Political Parties are "unified" on all issues? The Conservatives are split on many complex social issues (same-sex marriage, abortion, all of the "hardline family values", etc.), and not all party members agree with party leadership... but guess what? The same can be said about the Liberals. Likewise with other parties. That's why NONE OF THEM are anxious to dig up these issues as "policy" (except, it would appear, when trying to define their opponent's policy).
That's also why Martin and Layton refuse to allow free votes on these issues.
4. If you (a) actually compare the platforms and (b) give up the ignorant dogma that "Conservatives are very, very different", you'll find the the Conservative Party is much closer to the Liberal Party in all material aspects than it is to the American Republicans. They are even closer to the Liberal Party than they are to the American Democrats. They are probably even closer to the NDP than they are to either of the American parties.
...but it's hard to make them look like Devil worshipers... or worse yet, Americans (gasp)... when you see the TRUE difference between Liberals and Conservatives boils down to 1% reductions in GST vs. Income tax, and whether or nor Canada should get into the day-care business.
No. I'm suggesting that you chose to capitalize the word "conservatives" to try to make the CPOC look like an extension of the familiar and trustworthy PC's of old. Your actual words were: "If they really wanted to do it, the Conservatives could have proposed changes in criminal code for prostitution for many years now. But they haven't... and it isn't for lack of opportunity." Who exactly could have done that for all those years? Which conservatives had so much opportunity to propose changes to the laws pertaining to sexworkers? The only "Conservatives-with-a-capital-C" that fall within those parameters are the long-defunct PC's. Now you're backpedalling all over yourself trying to pretend that you were only talking about conservatives (the persuasion) in general. Hogwash!Fortunato said:
Here's "one of them". Ever heard of Art Hanger?Fortunato said:
http://www.arthangermp.com/newsarchive/na20051126edmontonsun.htm
...."A self-styled lone wolf on a House of Commons committee considering relaxing Canada's prostitution laws is cheering what he says will be the death of the group's report when the Liberal government falls.
A five-member justice subcommittee has been fine-tuning a draft report that will recommend legal reform to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. Sections of a draft leaked to the media show the committee is recommending the federal government scrap all Criminal Code sections that deal with adult prostitution.
"I stalled it as long as I could. It looks like I will be successful because it will not see the light of day," said Conservative MP Art Hanger, who opposes decriminalization of prostitution.
The former Calgary cop said reviving the report after the election would be difficult.
"The laws of Canada should reflect the reality that prostitution has terrible impacts for those who participate in it and for society as a whole," Hanger told 250 delegates at the Western Canadian Vice Conference in Edmonton yesterday.
He said Canada must learn from the failures of decriminalization in New Zealand, where there are now four times as many sex-trade workers.
Hanger said the government must act to curb prostitution by helping unwilling or drug-addicted sex workers leave the trade, while imposing stronger enforcement and tougher sentences for those who exploit women. He also called for heavy fines for johns."......
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmem...p?Language=E&OrgCId=245&Parl=38&PersonId=1290
...."Art Hanger
Federal Political Experience
Political Affiliation: Conservative Caucus
Constituency: Calgary Northeast
Province: Alberta
Telephone: (613) 947-4487
Fax: (613) 947-4490
Email: Hanger.A@parl.gc.ca".....
Bye!
Don't forget that the Liberals had tabled legislation in our last parliament that would have doubled the minimum mandatory sentences for 3 types of crime involving firearms and added two new categories. But the CPOC and NDP chose to gas that session of parliament with their spurious and premature non confidence motion, thus preventing the Liberals from doing the job they were elected to do. Martin had promised an election once Gomery had given his final report but the CPOC and NDP were too eager to prevent the Liberals from passing these tougher laws because it would have taken away a few of the planks of their platform for the upcoming election. So they pulled the plug on our parliament, then turned around and claimed that the Libs were soft on crime. This is hypocracy at its finest.Fritz96 said:
I can accept a certain amount of spin doctoring and posturing in politics but not if it puts Canadians in jeopardy. If there is legislation on the table that will save lives, I expect all political parties to rise above their own political self interest and to bloody well get that legislation passed into law. So I disagree with what you've said about finding a minister who is tough on violent crime. Martin became our PM in late 2003. Most of his tenure has been as the Liberal leader in a minority gov't. Given that he was faced with a minority gov't situation, the opposition parties have to take their share of the blame for obstructing Martin's legislation. It isn't as if Martin had a majority like Chretien did. Martin has been hogtied from day one and now he's being blamed for not accomplishing the utterly impossible. How about we allocate some of the blame during this minority gov't to those CPOC and NDP opposition members who placed their own political well being ahead of the physical well being of you and me? This should be part of any talk about accountability. Why should the CPOC and NDP be allowed to sabotage the nation's safety and not be held even slightly accountable. Anyone?
*Can't Wait Any Longer*slowpoke said:
The Liberals have been in power since 1992 and they are very well know to be soft on criminals. Paul Martin was a very influencial leader under Chretian, he didn't do anyting about crime then, what makes anyone think he is going to do anything about it now.
Time for a change!!!!
And those words remain true.slowpoke said:
ANY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT COULD HAVE MADE IT AN ISSUE. INCLUDING YOUR EXAMPLE, MR. HANGAR - who has been in Parliament since 1993.slowpoke said:
ANY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT COULD HAVE INTRODUCED A PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL.slowpoke said:
Not true.slowpoke said:
There is no "backpedalling", and I made no mistake. When I wrote "Conservatives", I meant "Conservatives" (a party)... you know, the 100 or so people in Ottawa that belong to that party - most of which for a very long time. Your Mr. Hangar example is just such one (or didn't you read the link you attached). He is "conservative" (small "c") and a "Conservative" (big "C"); he's been in Parliament since 1993... well over 10 years now. In that time, how many ammendments has he tabled in that time to INCREASE Criminal Code infractions for prostitution that everyone would HAVE to support or risk being seen as "pro-prostitution" (Mr. Beerbelly's "Chicken Little, this is the end of the hobby" concern)? A number less than one, perhaps?slowpoke said:
And as for your ignorant fantasy of how different your "familiar and trustworthy PC's of old" and Conservatives are, you should note that the parties are comprised of - and defined by - the PEOPLE of their membership... and the PCs and Conservative PEOPLE remain the same. Remember your beloved Mr. Mulroney? Remember when he nominated Ms. Stronach for the leadership of the Conservatives?
Hogwash indeed.
Bye!
I don't think he's going to do anything about it now because the CPOC and NDP shut down our last parliament with their premature non-confidence motion. Martin tried to pass tougher mandatory sentences for firearms offences back in November 2005 and he was stopped by the CPOC and NDP:Judas H said:
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/crimetime.html
...."In late November, the government introduced legislation that would have increased mandatory minimums on three firearm offences from one to two years, and add two new firearms offences to the Criminal Code, but that bill died when the government was defeated days later."...
You're basically saying it was OK for the CPOC and NDP to prevent the the Libs from passing tougher mandatory firearm sentences in the last parliament because the Libs are "soft on criminals". That's like telling someone they can't have any food because they haven't been eating enough! LOL Very clever!
BTW, the overall crime rate has been trending downward since 1991. This latest spree of Toronto shootings happened during 2005 while Martin was in a minority government situation. So when we got a spike in the rate of violent crime here in TO with people suddenly getting shot all over the place, the Libs introduced a bill to double the mandatory sentences for several types of gun crimes etc. But what do we get from CPOC and NDP? An obstructionist non confidence vote intended to prevent the Libs from making Canada a safer place. So Harper gets his election but the people who pay his salary get to watch perfectly good anti-crime legislation go down the tubes. Nice to see that Harper and Layton are really so concerned for our safety. All they had to do was wait a month or so and they would have got their election anyway but we would have gotten better laws with longer sentences for criminals.
Martin was the finance minister when Chretien was in power and none of us has the slightest idea how "influential" he was concerning crime - especially when you consider that he and Chretien hated each other's guts.
that's absolute crap.james t kirk said:
our economy is good because of economic conditions, not because of a P.M. that hasn't been in power for the last 12 years...we are resource rich and commodity prices have been high for quite some time. we literally have the gold!
Judas H said:
Yeah those liars lieberals are going to get tought in crime now?? give me a break please!! what a joke!!
They like criminals because they get votes from them!! they also believe child porn is ART!
I hope one of the people voting lieberal don't lose any of their family members due to a shotting and then the criminals will have more rights than them!! or maybe they will be minors and they will be protected under the youth ofenders act crap created by the lieberals! what a a joke!!!
