News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 1.9K     13 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.3K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 710     0 

Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels

That said, Harper didn't have a majority before, nor an eviscerated, weakened and disorganized Liberal party across the floor. Not to mention the NDP lefties.
Click to expand...

All the more reason not to do it. No Prime Minister of Canada wants to be known as the first leader to deprive rights to Canadians or make illegal any action or expression that is protected by the Charter. Pre-Charter incidents like the October Crisis (mostly considered legit) and especially the internment of Japanese Canadians in the 40's still resonates with Canadians as our darkest hour.

The over-ride power is there only for extreme situations of judiciary abuse. It's like the Queen's reserve powers. And the current situation hardly warrants this kind of extreme situation...the changes required to the laws are actually quite minor. If for some stupid reason, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that said child pornography laws were in conflict with the Charter, I imagine it might cause Parliament to use it.
 
freshcutgrass said:
The operative word here seems to be children. Not that anybody is suggesting putting brothels in apartment buildings or next to schools in the first place (hyperbole), but what is this concern about children? There's no practical reason to be concerned that increased safety for prostitutes or the idea of legal brothels pose a danger to children. So all that is left is the moral issue surrounding prostitution. And I have not met a child yet that has moral issues with prostitution, so it boils down to adults with moral issues about prostitution, hiding behind children.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're right let's put it to a public vote. The public should approve brothels overwhelmingly if there is nothing wrong with them.
 
Well, if you're right let's put it to a public vote.
Click to expand...

Put what to a public vote? Do you mean a public opinion pole on the sections of the Criminal Code in question...or are you suggesting Constitutional Law be determined by public opinion? The latter of course cannot be done.

Besides, the vast majority of Canadians approve of the Charter, so overriding the Charter would be against public opinion.
 
freshcutgrass said:
All the more reason not to do it. No Prime Minister of Canada wants to be known as the first leader to deprive rights to Canadians or make illegal any action or expression that is protected by the Charter. Pre-Charter incidents like the October Crisis (mostly considered legit) and especially the internment of Japanese Canadians in the 40's still resonates with Canadians as our darkest hour.

The over-ride power is there only for extreme situations of judiciary abuse. It's like the Queen's reserve powers. And the current situation hardly warrants this kind of extreme situation...the changes required to the laws are actually quite minor. If for some stupid reason, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that said child pornography laws were in conflict with the Charter, I imagine it might cause Parliament to use it.
Click to expand...

I think you think that Stephen Harper's supporters think like you think, or should think like you think, if they were thinking properly. What you think Stephen Harper's supporters think is a dangerous thing to think. They don't think. They feel, or at least they think-feel. And the more you tell them their think-feelings are incorrect and irrational, the more they think-feel their think-feelings are profoundly correct and under attack by non-think-feelers.

Just_Chris said:
Well, if you're right let's put it to a public vote. The public should approve brothels overwhelmingly if there is nothing wrong with them.
Click to expand...

Are you being facetious? Please tell me you're being facetious.

Constitutional legal protections for fundamental human rights (e.g. the Charter, the US Bill of Rights) exist precisely so that they cannot be abrogated by the temporary whims of any group or government.
 
I think you think that Stephen Harper's supporters think like you think, or should think like you think, if they were thinking properly.
Click to expand...

This isn't the USA, and you can't win an election by pandering to the far religious right. And what I "think" is based on facts...Harper is on record as saying he wouldn't use it. And he hasn't used it on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, which are bigger issues than this is. Plus, the overwhelming majority of Canadians are on record as supporters of the Charter.

Any way you shake it, using the Notwithstanding clause would do you more political damage than whatever it was you invoked it over. Which is why nobody has ever done it, or likely ever will.
 
freshcutgrass said:
This isn't the USA, and you can't win an election by pandering to the far religious right. And what I "think" is based on facts...Harper is on record as saying he wouldn't use it. And he hasn't used it on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, which are bigger issues than this is. Plus, the overwhelming majority of Canadians are on record as supporters of the Charter.

Any way you shake it, using the Notwithstanding clause would do you more political damage than whatever it was you invoked it over. Which is why nobody has ever done it, or likely ever will.
Click to expand...

I disagree that Harper will feel bound to respect any previous commitments he may have made, or to behave in a way that is commensurate with any previous Canadian government. Unfortunately, all of the Cassandras who have been screaming about Harper being a dangerous wingnut appear to have been correct.

Also, it remains to be seen whether Harper will pay a political price for his wingnuttery. There is lots of evidence, both theoretical and practical, that people's faith in the correctness of their previous wrong decisions is only strengthened by evidence of wrongness.


I hope that I am wrong and you are right.
 
Last edited:
hahahaaaaaaa.....some of you kill me! Children! Please think of the children!! I have to ask: is there anywhere where there AREN'T small children? You really are using children to hide your moral beliefs behind. Begs the question: where do these children come from? Do tell. I say this because you seem to be all out of sorts about people being paid to do that which comes naturally. Maybe that's your real concern...that they're not doing it for free. I can give you my ex's number....she's on your side...never charged a dime and she's on par with these professionals.
 
MTown said:
hahahaaaaaaa.....some of you kill me! Children! Please think of the children!! I have to ask: is there anywhere where there AREN'T small children? You really are using children to hide your moral beliefs behind. Begs the question: where do these children come from? Do tell. I say this because you seem to be all out of sorts about people being paid to do that which comes naturally. Maybe that's your real concern...that they're not doing it for free. I can give you my ex's number....she's on your side...never charged a dime and she's on par with these professionals.
Click to expand...

I like your honesty. People are hypocritical as usual.

children see people have sex, God, that means their life will be totally ruined? Plus, hookers don't really just spread their legs all naked and do it on the street for people (children) to see, do they? I really don't see how prostitution has anything with children on this topic either. In order to see sex, there is abundance of free stuff on the internet. If the children are old enough to understand prostitution, they are smart enough to find whatever you want to see online, if they want to.

Such hypocrisy is exactly like all those curse words are replaced by "beep" on TV, as if in that way, children will never learn and say the F word (or they never hear it in real life, including their own parents).

So far nobody has answer the question why prostitution should be illegal yet extramarital sexual affairs, where someone actually gets hurt, is not. Christian belief? how laughable.
 
I dont know why religion needs to be repeatedly brought into this topic, especially when its insulting. BTW There are religious people (there are more than just Christians) who do think and make decisions based on those thoughts. Its ignorant to think that all religious people are ignorant.
 
MTown said:
Cute! A mutually beneficial relationship. Laughs for everyone. Now if we could just change some minds.
Click to expand...

ROFLOL!

Yes, because of course you're right and they're wrong. Maybe you should consider changing your own mind before expecting others to change theirs. It couldn't just be that someone else has a differing opinion? Of course not. The must be wrong, because you're always right.
 
I'm always right.....except when I'm not. I also have no expectations of anyone. To have expectations is to be set up for disappointment. I do, however think that a lot of the arguments counter in this thread are illogical and unreasonable. And I do strongly enjoy having a laugh. Especially at the expense of those who take themselves and their moral stances too seriously. Again, my thanks.

And what the hell am i gonna change my mind on the validity of our charter for?
 
Last edited:
MTown said:
I'm always right.....except when I'm not. I also have no expectations of anyone. To have expectations is to be set up for disappointment. I do, however think that a lot of the arguments counter in this thread are illogical and unreasonable. And I do strongly enjoy having a laugh. Especially at the expense of those who take themselves and their moral stances too seriously. Again, my thanks.

And what the hell am i gonna change my mind on the validity of our charter for?
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, do you have small children? If you don't, than you have no place telling those that do that there arguments are "illogical and unreasonable".

And you still haven't said why you want brothels to be legalized. How specifically is this going to benefit our city? Or are you just that hard up for sex that you want them for personal reasons.

PS, to say that there is nothing wrong with exposing young children to sex is so stupid it defies belief. You can debate as to what age kids should be exposed to sex, but there is definitely an age which is too young. And if you don't believe me, poll some parents with young kids as to whether or not it's appropriate to expose them to sex. I can almost guarantee you that nearly 100% of them will disagree with you.

Put aside the brothel issue for a second. On the idea that young children should be exposed to sex you are 100% wrong. There's a reason why parents have always tried to shield young kids for sex. There's a reason there are minimum ages to watch porno movies or buy adult magazines. It is not a case that society up until this point in history has been wrong, and you are actually right.

Also, whoever said that I think all prostitution should be illegal lied. But there's a difference between a man paying a woman for sex, and an organized brothel (probably running out of a residence next door to people who in all likelihood don't want it there) with skanky women and dirty old men coming and going like an assembly line. If I knew that the brothels would all be in the back of industrial plazas in places like Finch Ave. like the rub and tugs are, I might not even be against them. That's very unlikely though. They would probably mostly be run from residences.
 
Last edited:
No, I don't have children. I'm smart enough to know that I'm not ready to have kids....also, my fiancée left me for my (ex) best friend so I don't quite have a mate. And no, I'm not a proponent of brothels because I can't get laid. Shit, where did that come from?

I didn't once say anything about exposing young kids to sex. I did, however, say it's absolutely ridiculous to argue against brothels based on the fact that they may be located near where children live or frequent. Are you capable of reading English? If not, I'm easily able to proffer that which I've said in other European languages.

In any case, this was a Charter challenge and reason prevailed so you can kinda go suck it. If you have a problem with our Charter I highly suggest you move to another country where your over-dramatised moral beliefs might find a friendlier home.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top