Sex Purchase ban discussion at Conservative Convention....

[PlayfulAlex]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jim-Hillyer-MP/414848785245807

this conservative mp has a f$%^ed up survey and is support of the nordic model. anyone who can, please post your opinion on his facebook page....

i left some comments...ehem....

Very nicely done, people...I'm very proud of all those who commented on Jim's Facebook page, those of you who can/do speak up are our heroes.

 

[leoghaire]

I replied too

 

[susi]

wicked!! you guys rock!!

 

[VanessaofBC]

wicked!! you guys rock!!

and this chick thinks YOU rock, susie!!!

From Facebook:

Wow, go susi! Jim please do share your links. Show us what you have. Have you looked into and spoke with escorts, the clients they have what they think, have you personally spoke to them or the men who see them.

.
Link to sex reform survey

The questions are good for a laugh. As if most Canadians even know what The "Nordic Model" means.

1. I believe that prostitution should be legal in Canada

Yes
No
Don't know

2. If no, do you believe that the prostitute should continue to bear the brunt of prosecution or do you believe that the pimps and johns should be equally prosecuted?

Prostitute should bear the brunt of prosecution
Pimp, johns, and prostitutes should be equally prosecuted
Don't know

3. Do you support the Nordic model which recognizes the vast majority of prostitutes to be victims, and therefore not held criminally responsible - while pimps and johns are held criminally responsible?

Yes, I support to Nordic model
No, I do not support the Nordic model

^^ Survey FAIL!!

 

[Holly Taylor]

Keep up the good work, Susi!

 

[Tugela]

The questions are good for a laugh. As if most Canadians even know what The "Nordic Model" means.

Oh please....everyone knows that the "Nordic Model" is a blue eyed blonde with big boobs!!

 

[HankQuinlan]

And, yes, of course they passed that motion today...pretty much buried on the CBC news among other resolutions:

Conservative Party members have passed motions at their biannual convention in Calgary, pledging not to support euthanasia or assisted suicide, and to scale back public sector pension plans.

The policies don't necessarily become government policy, but tell the party's leadership, including the prime minister, what direction members would like to see.

The party also adopted policies to:
■pledge not to support any legislation to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide.
■move public sector pensions to defined contribution plans rather than defined benefits, essentially scaling them back and bringing them into line with private sector pensions.
■reject the concept of legalizing the purchase of sex and develop a plan to target the buyers and third parties who profit off the sex trade.
■let faith-based organizations refuse the use of their facilities to people holding views contrary to their own.
■separate the CBC's TV and radio funding allocations.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Too bad they didn't pass a resolution to change THEIR pension plan.

In fact, why do politicians get pensions at all? Why not move to what they're doing to veterans - a fixed payment and then told to go away? Let's say $10,000 for every year you're an MP - then fuck off and stop being a drain on society. If it's good enough for veterans who put their lives on the line, or get seriously injured it should be good enough for over-fed politicians whose biggest risk is indigestion.

 

[PlayfulAlex]

Oh please....everyone knows that the "Nordic Model" is a blue eyed blonde with big boobs!!

 

[Miss*Bijou]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7D7nOh57-I8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



minimum characters required to post

 

[HankQuinlan]

There is almost no comment in the national media on this specific topic (making a "Nordic model" approach to legislation official CPC policy). There is some on the right-to-die resolution; even more on their union-busting resolutions. I guess it is not considered on interest to the Canadian public....or, it is the weekend.

 

[sdw]

There is almost no comment in the national media on this specific topic (making a "Nordic model" approach to legislation official CPC policy). There is some on the right-to-die resolution; even more on their union-busting resolutions. I guess it is not considered on interest to the Canadian public....or, it is the weekend.

It could be that the Conservative leadership doesn't want to fight that fight when the Supreme Court of Canada issues it's decision.

 

[HankQuinlan]

It could be that the Conservative leadership doesn't want to fight that fight when the Supreme Court of Canada issues it's decision.

They don't have to fight; they can make any laws they want to. The only consideration is whether or not it will help them in the next election.

The Supreme Court's decision would be based on current law; a new law would mean they just drop the case before them. The Court has a majority of Conservative judges now, and could well uphold the current law, which would suit Harper just fine -- a victory for law and order. If the Court decision goes against them, I can really see them choosing to include it in one of their Omnibus bills, spinning it to trumpet how much they care about women's rights and their defence of victims.

They could also have other reasons not to pursue it; trying to predict the future by looking into Harper's head is pretty scary. Sifting his entrails for signs, though...I could go for that.

 

[sdw]

They don't have to fight; they can make any laws they want to. The only consideration is whether or not it will help them in the next election.

The Supreme Court's decision would be based on current law; a new law would mean they just drop the case before them. The Court has a majority of Conservative judges now, and could well uphold the current law, which would suit Harper just fine -- a victory for law and order. If the Court decision goes against them, I can really see them choosing to include it in one of their Omnibus bills, spinning it to trumpet how much they care about women's rights and their defence of victims.

They could also have other reasons not to pursue it; trying to predict the future by looking into Harper's head is pretty scary. Sifting his entrails for signs, though...I could go for that.

The case before the SCOC is a Charter case. While the SCOC could indicate in their decision a way to write a law that met the requirements of the Charter, the Ontario decision on Bawdy houses is unlikely to be repealed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_v._Canada.

While I'm not a Lawyer, I do know a well respected Lawyer that is of the opinion that Justice Himel made a well reasoned decision that will be upheld by the SCOC.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

anybody heard how the vote went on the resolution?

 

[sdw]

anybody heard how the vote went on the resolution?

Hank posted this from the CBC earlier in the thread:

Conservative Party members have passed motions at their biannual convention in Calgary, pledging not to support euthanasia or assisted suicide, and to scale back public sector pension plans.

The policies don't necessarily become government policy, but tell the party's leadership, including the prime minister, what direction members would like to see.

The party also adopted policies to:
■pledge not to support any legislation to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide.
■move public sector pensions to defined contribution plans rather than defined benefits, essentially scaling them back and bringing them into line with private sector pensions.
■reject the concept of legalizing the purchase of sex and develop a plan to target the buyers and third parties who profit off the sex trade.
■let faith-based organizations refuse the use of their facilities to people holding views contrary to their own.
■separate the CBC's TV and radio funding allocations.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

thank you, missed that. thanks hank

 

[Tugela]

■let faith-based organizations refuse the use of their facilities to people holding views contrary to their own.

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.

 

[HankQuinlan]

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.

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....

 

[PlayfulAlex]

Hank posted this from the CBC earlier in the thread: ■let faith-based organizations refuse the use of their facilities to people holding views contrary to their own.

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