My question is .
Is this going to be a see saw back and forth law changing by the two parties.?
One put one law in ,the other cancel a that law and put another in ..then new party comes in and reinstated old law .
I don't see anything democratic about that .
Any law they propose should be according the standards of the bill of rights and freedoms .and pass the test of constitutionally be for it is ever put in as law .
Even better educate the people and have them vote .. I know it my not pass but then that is majority wants their kind of morality so that would be the law of the land ..
Of course only if it is according to the constitution .
i think..... that we have to engage and hold parliamentarians to the rule of parliament..."the Standing Orders Act"
From the Ethics Commissioners web page;
On being elected, Members of the House of Commons become trustees of public confidence.*
Members must be seen to be impartial*and to derive no personal benefit or gain from their decisions. Various attempts have been made over the past 25 years to define what constitutes a conflict of interest and to devise rules regarding Members improperly using their influence, using insider information, and furthering their private interests.
I also refer to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament;
Purposes
1. The purposes of this Code are to
(a) maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of Members as well as the respect and confidence that society places in the House of Commons as an institution;
(b) demonstrate to the public that Members are held to standards that place the public interest ahead of their private interests and to provide a transparent system by which the public may judge this to be the case;
Principles
2. Given that service in Parliament is a public trust, the House of Commons recognizes and declares that Members are expected
(a) to serve the public interest and represent constituents to the best of their abilities;
(b)
to fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each Member and in the House of Commons;
(c) to perform their official duties and functions and arrange their private affairs in a manner that bears the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully discharged by simply acting within the law;
so those portions are my focus and in conversations with the ethics commissioners office the behavior of some MP's could be seen as a breach of these rules....they know that the 'evidence" they are promoting is not based in facts. they are promoting their own private interest in the abolition of prostitution...and by using public money to promote known untrue data as fact - a breach of the public trust has occured
i also refer to the unethical "evidence " mp's consider when making policy development decisions. in canada there are rules which govern research involving human beings.
“Tri - Council Policy Statement – Ethical Conduct for Research involving Human Beings (2010)”, Chapter 4 – Fairness and Equity in Research Participation - which details Appropriate Inclusions and Inappropriate Exclusion.
research which does not meet the criteria set out in the rules should never even make it to committee. so there is a problem with the way this issue is handled from the onset. if the research does not meet the ethics standards test, the committee shouldn't see it. once they've seen the false data, it's too late...they have already been biased by it.....especially as it plays into all the fears people hold about sex work....
finally, there is the office for the commissioner of lobbyists....
the rules there state that a person must not become a lobbyist for 5 years after leaving office and that they must give accurate information to members of parliament.....
https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/h_00014.html
so....while it might seem like we'll be stuck in a loop for ever...and i share that concern....i feel like these routes for justice may be of some use..... and please people if anyone has any ideas i would welcome any and all input...especially if there is an expert here in the standing orders act....i am not a lawyer but have used policies like these with success in the past...
i will say that in the recent engagement myself and other groups took part in with the "justice and human rights committe" on "human trafficking"...the mp's were very upset when i said these kinds of things to their faces...they were mad....the former minster of justice....rob nicholson/ conservative.... when it was his turn to speak pointed at me and started to raise his voice....of course so did i....about joy smith and her unethical behavior....the chair of the committee had to basically call order...
when they reacted like that i was freaked out. they were so rude, texting during people's presentations , talking among themselves while people were presenting...then after thinking on it a while....i feel like their reaction shows how threatened they were when i brought up the rules...
the truth is, if they followed their own rules we would not be in this situation.....we would already have decrim.... the facts are undeniable.... as was demonstrated by the decision of amnesty international...who were against decrim....but when challenged to follow the "evidence" back it's source and ensure they were only considering "ethical" information about sex work.....they did ....and then came out in support of decrim....
so, i know this is a long and complicated response....but this is what i found to try to help us...so is what i have been doing...
it's not an easy thing to change what we are trying to change....but hey, what do we have to loose? we're lucky in vancouver....at least here we have a sort of free zone....
love susie
