Peter McKay - Willfully Deaf, Dumb, Blind and Stupid
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
I hate the use of the term "stakeholder".
The laws of the nation, the governance of the nation, are the interest of all Canadians, not just the secretive clique of Tory insiders.
Canada is my country as much as it is Peter Mckay's.
The laws of the nation, the governance of the nation, are the interest of all Canadians, not just the secretive clique of Tory insiders.
Canada is my country as much as it is Peter Mckay's.
I love some of the comments made after the article such as....
"One might suppose giving money in the form of taxes to this government might render us all Johns ... if we were actually being provided any real service for their stipends .."
Panther
"One might suppose giving money in the form of taxes to this government might render us all Johns ... if we were actually being provided any real service for their stipends .."
Panther
I have to agree with Young.. Those that want to challenge this law and show it blatant flaws ..will ha e to wait for the right case .. and have a just argument t.
There well be some people justly charged under parts of the new law . And convicted because not all of the law is wrong of unconstitutional
There well be some people justly charged under parts of the new law . And convicted because not all of the law is wrong of unconstitutional
yes, but the issue is really do you pay for sex? If you are not forking out the money for some an actual sex act, but for a massage or something else, and the sex just occurs, then you are safe.
Actually I think the mess is going to last longer than many of us, and if you look back, it took from about 1988 to 2013 to have the communication part of the law struck down, and it was the second run at it through the suppreme court
Actually I think the mess is going to last longer than many of us, and if you look back, it took from about 1988 to 2013 to have the communication part of the law struck down, and it was the second run at it through the suppreme court
It never should be an issue about do you pay for sex.
If a person makes a choice to offer sexual services for pay that should be their right to do so
As long as their is no undo coursion by a third party and those paying for the sex are unaware of any other cause that is inparing the person ability to make a rational decision and informed choice.
Now should the need for money..to life off ..or to support a drug habit. Or pay for school.. be considered a coersing influence. ?
And why can't a person make the choise to pay for services that are offered if they so choose to do.
When they are not the one initiating or enticeing the in taciturn in any coersing manner.
There is a simple constitution argument. Sex and interaction with others is our human right.
Law can not and should not be able to restrict or make it a criminal act..just in its passing.
Neither should the state.be active in scrutinizing individuals open advertising and acceptance of selling or paying for these interactions...When there is no evidence to the contrary. .Just assuming that there is something other then advertised is not reasonable in a free and democratic society.
Of course there is the aspect of community safety. .and what is deemed to be in the best interest of society . . That again should only be an issue if the activities are impacting the community. .at the time they are performed.. Any thing in privet would not.unless it cause a disturbance on the out side.
TRUTH IS WE HAVE LAW IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH MOST OF THE UNWANTED AND UNDUE EFFECTS.OF PROSTITUTION.. and when there is some kind of criminal act taking place people can get charged under those laws.. selling sex . And buying sex usually is not the cause of the crime..human nature is.
If a person makes a choice to offer sexual services for pay that should be their right to do so
As long as their is no undo coursion by a third party and those paying for the sex are unaware of any other cause that is inparing the person ability to make a rational decision and informed choice.
Now should the need for money..to life off ..or to support a drug habit. Or pay for school.. be considered a coersing influence. ?
And why can't a person make the choise to pay for services that are offered if they so choose to do.
When they are not the one initiating or enticeing the in taciturn in any coersing manner.
There is a simple constitution argument. Sex and interaction with others is our human right.
Law can not and should not be able to restrict or make it a criminal act..just in its passing.
Neither should the state.be active in scrutinizing individuals open advertising and acceptance of selling or paying for these interactions...When there is no evidence to the contrary. .Just assuming that there is something other then advertised is not reasonable in a free and democratic society.
Of course there is the aspect of community safety. .and what is deemed to be in the best interest of society . . That again should only be an issue if the activities are impacting the community. .at the time they are performed.. Any thing in privet would not.unless it cause a disturbance on the out side.
TRUTH IS WE HAVE LAW IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH MOST OF THE UNWANTED AND UNDUE EFFECTS.OF PROSTITUTION.. and when there is some kind of criminal act taking place people can get charged under those laws.. selling sex . And buying sex usually is not the cause of the crime..human nature is.
What you are missing here is that the goverent wants to control every act of sex on this country. When the law passes, u won't be able to give a gal a stick of gum and then have sex with her. No one is ever going to believe u didn't give her the gum to get the sex. U are also missing the fact that this law is for everyone in canada not just the corner hooker. Hence forth every woman who submits must do it freely as the law will soon say or take the chance of criminalizing her mate. The police will soon have powers of examining couples mating anywhere at anytime to ask if some one benefited. This law is hardly about safe communities and prostitution. It is about Harper and McKay reformatting sexual immorality in Canada using the pretext of prostitution to do so.
Read the damn thing
Read the damn thing
