Sex Purchase ban discussion at Conservative Convention....

[sdw]

I wonder if that includes atheist organizations refusing to allow evangelical Christians? I bet if that happened those same people who voted for that resolution would be squealing like stuck pigs.

More and More, facilities capable of holding a medium to large meeting are only in churches. Capitol Hill Hall in Burnaby used to be owned and run by an association, now it's a City of Burnaby park. Why? The fees charged for the infrequent meetings can't pay the city taxes on the land. Becoming a park was the only way to ensure that the hall continued to be available.

Political Parties used to own various halls and offices. However, every time the boundaries change for the electoral area the assets had to be divided among the new electoral areas that had a piece of the original electoral area. It's a law both provincially and federally. The effect was that political parties had to sell their halls and offices and distribute the cash to the association in the new electoral area.

Anyway, the chance of an atheist organization owning a hall is practically nil. Churches are the only association that has a daily use for the hall and doesn't have to pay property taxes in most municipalities.

 

[sdw]

I know this is a little off-topic for the thread but this comment did remind me that some faith-based organizations have refused the use of their facilities to people (apparently) holding views similar to their own, except that racism trumps views. Remember this story:?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gises-refusing-host-wedding-black-couple.html

Apples and Oranges Alex. The same as if you linked to a similar story in Alabama. Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and one of the the areas that has been thoroughly interpreted is the refusal to rent on the grounds of race. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/human-righ...round-paper/prohibited-grounds-discrimination Since freedom of religion is also protected by the Charter, only Churches can discriminate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Canada

 

[Tugela]

It would depend on the wording of the law; by definition, an atheist organization would not be "faith-based." I don't think the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns a lot of facilities suitable for weddings or christenings....

Belief in supernatural beings is different from belief in the absence of supernatural beings?

The criteria would be belief of the organization. One would not have greater importance than another.

That is different from the beliefs of individuals. Presumably those beliefs could not be used to discriminate.

 

[Tugela]

More and More, facilities capable of holding a medium to large meeting are only in churches. Capitol Hill Hall in Burnaby used to be owned and run by an association, now it's a City of Burnaby park. Why? The fees charged for the infrequent meetings can't pay the city taxes on the land. Becoming a park was the only way to ensure that the hall continued to be available.

Political Parties used to own various halls and offices. However, every time the boundaries change for the electoral area the assets had to be divided among the new electoral areas that had a piece of the original electoral area. It's a law both provincially and federally. The effect was that political parties had to sell their halls and offices and distribute the cash to the association in the new electoral area.

Anyway, the chance of an atheist organization owning a hall is practically nil. Churches are the only association that has a daily use for the hall and doesn't have to pay property taxes in most municipalities.

There are other venues. Such as commercial space (such as hotels), community centers, sports organizations and non-religious organizations such as the Legion.

I can't remember the last time I attended a function in a hall owned by a religious organization. Usually they only use their facilities for their own purposes.

What this is all about is not halls, it is hospitals, medical facilities, schools, old age retirement centers etc etc. They want to impose their beliefs on people who are desperate and in need, and they use these mechanisms to do it.

 

[CJ Tylers]

All canadian SP's should put the word out, to the US as well, that no SP's are to provide service to Conservative MP's, or party card holders. Without their sidelines sex, they'll shrivel up like rasins and die. With the sudden increase in household money, their wives might get suspicious about what they were doing before... and, of course, tax payers will no longer be on the hook for the hookers that cabinet ministers pick up.

Win win!

 

[HankQuinlan]

Belief in supernatural beings is different from belief in the absence of supernatural beings?

Yes, absolutely. Atheism is about LACK of belief in the supernatural without evidence. It is the opposite of faith. As soon as someone provides proof of unicorns, angels, gods, reincarnation, etc., I would change my beliefs accordingly.

There actually is an "Atheism for Dummies" book widely available if you would like to do a little research.

 

[HankQuinlan]

All canadian SP's should put the word out, to the US as well, that no SP's are to provide service to Conservative MP's, or party card holders. Without their sidelines sex, they'll shrivel up like rasins and die. With the sudden increase in household money, their wives might get suspicious about what they were doing before... and, of course, tax payers will no longer be on the hook for the hookers that cabinet ministers pick up.

Win win!

I think quite the opposite would be preferable. If the cons start to table such legislation, the secret sisterhood of SPs (to which they all belong, of course) should pass around photos of every Conservative MP to all of their members and out any of them obtaining services to the media (along with a DNA sample, of course). This selective lack of discretion about their clients would be against their code, of course, but it would definitely be for the greater good.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Why are they even still in power?-

The Canadian Federal Court has confirmed that the country’s 2011 federal election, which led to the victory of Stephen Harper's government, was fraudulent.


The court emphasized in a Thursday ruling that it has found in no uncertain terms that widespread election fraud took place during the vote.

The ruling also stated that “there was an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election campaign by a person with access to the [Conservative Party's] CIMS database.”

Accordingly, the Council of Canadians has called on the Conservative Party to investigate the issue. It says anything less at this point would be a cover-up on behalf of the Conservatives.

The Council of Canadians says that the non-cooperation, obstructionism, and attempts to disrupt the Federal Court case by the CIMS makes it look like Prime Minister Harper has something to conceal.

Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians said “This Federal Court decision is a major indictment of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

“Either senior leaders of the Conservative Party were directly involved in election fraud or they were astoundingly negligent in securing access to their voter database. Illegal or incompetent--just like in the Senate scandal.”

 

[VanessaofBC]

All canadian SP's should put the word out, to the US as well, that no SP's are to provide service to Conservative MP's, or party card holders. Without their sidelines sex, they'll shrivel up like rasins and die. With the sudden increase in household money, their wives might get suspicious about what they were doing before... and, of course, tax payers will no longer be on the hook for the hookers that cabinet ministers pick up.

Win win!

And just one last question before I give you my address..... did you vote Conservative in the last election?ound:

Why are they even still in power?-

The Canadian Federal Court has confirmed that the country’s 2011 federal election, which led to the victory of Stephen Harper's government, was fraudulent.


The court emphasized in a Thursday ruling that it has found in no uncertain terms that widespread election fraud took place during the vote.

The ruling also stated that “there was an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election campaign by a person with access to the [Conservative Party's] CIMS database.”

Accordingly, the Council of Canadians has called on the Conservative Party to investigate the issue. It says anything less at this point would be a cover-up on behalf of the Conservatives.

The Council of Canadians says that the non-cooperation, obstructionism, and attempts to disrupt the Federal Court case by the CIMS makes it look like Prime Minister Harper has something to conceal.

Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians said “This Federal Court decision is a major indictment of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

“Either senior leaders of the Conservative Party were directly involved in election fraud or they were astoundingly negligent in securing access to their voter database. Illegal or incompetent--just like in the Senate scandal.”

What!?!?! Sounds like some sort of weird third world politics to me!!!

 

[vancity_cowboy]

I know this is a little off-topic for the thread but this comment did remind me that some faith-based organizations have refused the use of their facilities to people (apparently) holding views similar to their own, except that racism trumps views. Remember this story:?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gises-refusing-host-wedding-black-couple.html

a story written in a british tabloid about an instance in southern u.s. ...

what does this have to do with canada?

 

[CJ Tylers]

Vanessa, I was more intending MP's...people whose face you could recognize. I figure, given their values, more than a few of them make use of SP's.

 

[yazoo]

I figure, given their values, more than a few of them make use of SP's.

What does this mean?

 

[PlayfulAlex]

Vanessa, I was more intending MP's...people whose face you could recognize. I figure, given their values, more than a few of them make use of SP's.

I have an MP that visits me on a somewhat regular basis...what exactly are you saying?

 

[CAEC]

To clarify the question without suggesting an answer:

Should Members of Parliament who have enjoyed the services of a pro and then vote in favour of the criminalization of sex work be outted by their service providers and given an award for hypocrisy?

Background. It looks like France is going to adopt a law making it an offence for a client to pay an SP. This is supposed to be good for the SPs.

The Conservative Party of Canada has formally endorsed such a law for Canada.

 

[Smilf]

MP's visit sex workers all the time, as do other levels of politicians, lawyers, doctors, dentists and every other profession under the sun.... a film maker in Calgary has been in touch with me about doing a documentary so those that do this job freely can express their views, will set up a meeting with him and see what exactly he can offer and if those that wish to have their identities and voices hidden can do so .. as that will be a key factor for a lot of ladies.

Were ladies any busier during said event? Not that I'm aware of.