Ice4fun 78406 Report post Posted November 14, 2014 This is not a law intended to protect our communities or vulnerable populations who participate in the sex industry. Let's recognize it for what it is.. it is the imposition of extreme rights moral ideals on the rest of society. Unfortunately the striking down of the old outdated laws by the Supreme Court because they did not meet the legitimate rights of sex workers to safety and security was not met with an enlightened review of the working conditions of sex workers and an honest attempt at improving the working environment it instead was seen by Mr Harper as an opportunity to curry favor with Mr. Harpers right wing base and and impose their minority views on the majority of Canadians. Mr Harper used the opportunity to please his right wing base and to politically position anyone who opposed the new law as supporters of child abuse and human trafficking. Mr. Harpers response brings to mind the the actions of other morally corrupt leaders in the past who have tried to take away people's rights with bogus laws that pretend to be protecting our community values but we're ultimately seen by the courts as what they were unconstitutional... this is a human rights issue and unfortunately like most human rights issues the battle takes time... Mr. Harper and Mr Mackay are the modern day Gov of Alabama standing at the school door refusing access and denying people their rights to safety and security.... but let's see this law for what it is the beginning of the end for this right wing moral crusade.... the fight is not over. Just my Opinion Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest C*****tte Report post Posted November 14, 2014 And we cannot hire any third party that is a commercial enterprise for support activities for us workers. I also wonder if he read the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300292 Report post Posted November 14, 2014 MacKay wasn't replying to the Tabatha Southey column. Nor was he addressing concerns of ladies and gentlemen. He used the column to provide a rote response on what his law in his mind is about. And that response is directed to his "moral minority" followers, it's sort of a MacKay way of telling his constituents and CPC followers, "look what I did for you", hidden meaning, vote for us (especially me) next election Are we really surprised he doesn't know his own law. He and the CPC don't seem to care about that other little law, commonly known as The Charter Of Rights and Freedoms. Nor does the SCC seem to be important to them. He probably thinks a clever (in his mind) title is all that is needed to address the concerns of the Bedford decision. Probably get a more intelligent discussion about this legislation talking to a brick wall. And a brick wall could likely come up with better legislation than MacKay and the cpc regime A rambling RG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TINCUP 6043 Report post Posted November 14, 2014 Roaming guy you are right. I would go further in stating that the CONServatives are just plain Con Artists of the worst kind. At the next federal election in 2015 It is my wish that the CONServtives be reduce to two seats in the House of Commons. Tincup Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300292 Report post Posted November 14, 2014 Roaming guy you are right. I would go further in stating that the CONServatives are just plain Con Artists of the worst kind. At the next federal election in 2015 It is my wish that the CONServtives be reduce to two seats in the House of Commons. Tincup I agree with you...except for the two seats part, they should be wiped out........! Having 2 cpc MP's gives two useless people a chance to breath air that could better be breathed by more useful MP's...geez do I sound a little bitter LOL RG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
