Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Pierre Trudeau primarily responsible for the "liberaltarian" (liberal welfare state, culturally libertarian) ethos that makes up modern Canada's identity?
As far as Trudeau goes, I can say without a doubt it was his irresponsible government that began the Canadian tradition of running up government debts to pay for social programs that generally benefit those who pay the least for them. Personally, I think he was an idiot.
Trudeau also enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which has more or less usurped the power of elected government and placed the powers of defining Canadian laws and social policies in the hands of the liberal judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. Just recently, they ruled that running a Common Bawdy House and Living off the Avails of Prostitution (i.e. "pimping") to be legal avenues of enterprise. Nice legacy you left us, Pierre!
Last edited by sunshineleith; 04-26-2012 at 02:42 AM..
Just recently, they ruled that running a Common Bawdy House and Living off the Avails of Prostitution (i.e. "pimping") to be legal avenues of enterprise.
What's wrong with giving women the right to choose what to do for a living? Prostitution will always exist, whether it's legal or illegal, so why not legalize it, tax it, and make sure prostitutes are regularly tested for STDs? Brothels are the best way to do this.
Prostitution and brothels are legal in Germany and, guess what, all hell has not broken loose.
What's wrong with giving women the right to choose what to do for a living? Prostitution will always exist, whether it's legal or illegal, so why not legalize it, tax it, and make sure prostitutes are regularly tested for STDs? Brothels are the best way to do this.
Prostitution and brothels are legal in Germany and, guess what, all hell has not broken loose.
I agree.
Furthermore, it wasn't the Supreme Court of Canada that changed the rules on prostitution but the Ontario Court of Appeal. Annuvin has also simplified the 'living off the avails of prostitution' to the point of inaccuracy.
What the justices actually said, in the link above is that, "If the living on the avails provision were narrowly tailored to target pimps or others who exploit prostitutes, it could pass constitutional muster...But the section does not simply target pimps and its effects reach the safety and security of prostitutes."
The Court of Appeals decision may be appealed in turn to the Supreme Court.
As far as the Canadian constitution (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Canada+Charter+seen+model+world/6459327/story.html - broken link)goes, it is apparently the go-to model for constitutional reforms in the world
Yup! If prostitution is legal, as it always has been, I see no problem with letting them do it somewhere safe. Either make prostitution illegal and be done with it, or let the poor women off the street, they're human beings.
What's wrong with giving women the right to choose what to do for a living? Prostitution will always exist, whether it's legal or illegal, so why not legalize it, tax it, and make sure prostitutes are regularly tested for STDs? Brothels are the best way to do this.
Prostitution and brothels are legal in Germany and, guess what, all hell has not broken loose.
It's the "living off the avails" part that is patently wrong. Do you think it is OK to troll the local high school for a couple cute 18 year olds, get them hooked on junk and pimp them out so you don't have to work?
Pimping ain't easy, but c'mon man!
EDIT: I missed this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit
IWhat the justices actually said, in the link above is that, "If the living on the avails provision were narrowly tailored to target pimps or others who exploit prostitutes, it could pass constitutional muster...But the section does not simply target pimps and its effects reach the safety and security of prostitutes."
It makes no difference what the Justice said; he struck the down the law and it is now 100% legal in Canada to turn a teen girl out in the street for cash profit.
I have no issue with the legalization of prostitution within reason (i.e. no streetwalkers and the associated problems with them), but legalized pimping is nothing short of exploitation. FWIW, I have never heard of "call girl" services being the target of sting operations. Police already allowed prostitution under these circumstances, but would do sweeps of known streetwalker locations due to the social problems such activities create (ie. ramapant drugs, lower property values, crime, etc).
Trudeau also enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which has more or less usurped the power of elected government and placed the powers of defining Canadian laws and social policies in the hands of the liberal judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I don't think Trudeau got the Charter right, though I can't blame him solely for that (much as I'd like to). The Charter, as an idea, is fine - to take common law precedent and set it in stone, much as the U.S. had done at it's inception. Frankly, from looking at the U.S. example, I can see some benefits to having definite rights enshrined in our constitution.
The flaws I see in it are twofold: The phrase that "all rights are subject to reasonable limits as can be justified", etc. I dislike the notion that those rights can be curbed as deemed necessary. Either they're fundamental rights or they're privileges parading as rights. I understand that one person's rights cannot interfere with another's, and there will be some argument as to where, exactly, that happens. However, I think that line has enabled some curbing of rights to meet specific agendas, particularly in regards to free speech and unreasonable seizure.
Secondly, I'd have liked to see some mention of property rights enshrined in the Charter, however, that's not his fault, as it's my understanding that the Premiers were most opposed to that idea, rather than Trudeau himself.
As far as the Canadian constitution goes, it is apparently the go-to model for constitutional reforms in the world
That does not in any way mean that the legislation does not contain inheirent flaws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper
Frankly, from looking at the U.S. example, I can see some benefits to having definite rights enshrined in our constitution.
Definite rights? You may want to ask Ernst Zundel about how that Freedom of Speech "right" worked out for him. You have Freedom of Speech in Canada only as long as you have the accepted opinion - just like you do in every third-world dictatorship around the globe.
The only true test of Freedom of Speech is when it is applied to those whos views you despise the most. In Zundel's case, Canada failed in every regard. Zundel may very well be a racist Holocaust-denying douchebag, but he has just as much right to say what he believes as anybody else. To deny that right to him is to deny that right to everyone.
It's the "living off the avails" part that is patently wrong. Do you think it is OK to troll the local high school for a couple cute 18 year olds, get them hooked on junk and pimp them out so you don't have to work?
Pimping ain't easy, but c'mon man!
A pimp is to a prostitute like an agent is to an actor/actress.
I don't have first-hand experience so I can't say anything with certainty, but I would think that, were prostitution to be fully legalized, pimps would have to deal with things like advertising and procuring clients for them to, well, get a job.
Prostitutes would have to sign a legal contract with the pimp.
I think that's much better than being mistreated by a pimp and not being able to report it to the authorities out of fear of being arrested.
Legalizing would solve a lot of problems.
Definite rights? You may want to ask Ernst Zundel about how that Freedom of Speech "right" worked out for him. You have Freedom of Speech in Canada only as long as you have the accepted opinion - just like you do in every third-world dictatorship around the globe.
The only true test of Freedom of Speech is when it is applied to those whos views you despise the most. In Zundel's case, Canada failed in every regard. Zundel may very well be a racist Holocaust-denying douchebag, but he has just as much right to say what he believes as anybody else. To deny that right to him is to deny that right to everyone.
You do realize you're agreeing with what I wrote in that post, right?
A pimp is to a prostitute like an agent is to an actor/actress.
I don't have first-hand experience so I can't say anything with certainty, but I would think that, were prostitution to be fully legalized, pimps would have to deal with things like advertising and procuring clients for them to, well, get a job.
Prostitutes would have to sign a legal contract with the pimp.
Do you mean in the same sense as instituting a firearms registry would compel criminals to register their guns? Oh, wait...
Seriously, though... How does a judge standing up and declaring prostitution legal stop those who enslave women on drugs and force them out on the street for cash profit? Who would be policing such behaviours after you have basically said there is nothing wrong with it?
We abolished slavery a long time ago in British North America and it is still big business among organized crime syndicates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do realize you're agreeing with what I wrote in that post, right?
