Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

890 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
I will bet you 10 years of my income that prostitution WILL be legalized somewhere in Canada and then it will be legal in the whole country in the next 10-15 years.

It is illegal federally. The provinces can't make it legal individually and none seems interested. The only chance is if it is violates constitutional rights which by my reading and the lack of any court challenges it doesn't. There is simply no electoral payoff in Canada for politicians to champion prostitution. 

alan smithee wrote:
 You clearly don't se that attitudes evolve which is why abortion and soon cannabis are legal when only a decade or a few decades ago it was totally unthinkable.

Of course they are evolving, against prostitution. From what I remember of recent polls young people are more against it not less so. 

alan smithee wrote:
These erotic massage parlours,which are legal, is a form of legal prostitution.Why are they called erotic massage? Because it's a discreet way of saying they sell blow jobs. 

They are not legal which is why Laval just closed 19 of them. Tolerated and legal is not the same thing. 

alan smithee wrote:
Escort services are also legal. And nobody rents out a woman for a dinner and a little conversation..Especially because they charge by the hour or sometimes half hour. 

Escort services leave the sex part up to the people concerned so the escort service isn't breaking the law. The transaction takes place in private so difficult to bust anyone unless police are willing to go undercover but they could only arrest the man. I doubt they will go that far. Escort services are likely to keep on trucking as they have been because they are so lowkey. Nothing takes place on the premises. 

alan smithee wrote:
So I think you're out of touch about this issue. It's inevitable,it will happen and once it is it will become an untouchable issue just like abortion.

It has already joined the ranks of the untouchable unless the law is unconstitutional which I doubt. Abortion and prostitution law were both addressed by the Supreme Court because they were legally challenged not because any politician chose to deal with those subjects. Cannabis was addressed because Trudeau saw the upside. It instantly labeled him as progressive. In the US individual states started legalizing because citizens can demand referendums and a group got enough signatures to do it. Other than they are both illegal there is no similarity between cannabis and prostitution. 

Be happy Singh wants to spare drug addicts criminal records. 

Pondering

cco wrote:
 As much as I want PR, and as disappointed as I am that the NDP has never formed a federal government, I have to take issue with the idea that voting NDP has been a risky losing bet. Whether it's holding occasional influence in minority governments, shifting the dialogue as official opposition, or merely giving the Liberals a threat on their left flank to keep them from becoming the American Democrats, the NDP's played a vital role in shaping Canadian politics over the last few decades. If it hadn't been for the NDP, Justin Trudeau would be telling Canadians right now that universal health care would lead inexorably to communism and was too dangerous to try.

Lest we forget the NDP made it from conscience of parliament to official opposition to first place for a time during the 2015 election. Polls consistently register that Canadians are willing to vote NDP federally. The NDP just has to find a fresh vision for Canada. That shouldn't be too hard considering the competition. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

It is illegal federally. The provinces can't make it legal individually and none seems interested. The only chance is if it is violates constitutional rights which by my reading and the lack of any court challenges it doesn't. There is simply no electoral payoff in Canada for politicians to champion prostitution. 

It pretty much is legal already. It will become officially not a matter of if  but when.

Of course they are evolving, against prostitution. From what I remember of recent polls young people are more against it not less so. 

That's completely irrelevent. It isn't called the oldest profession on earth for nothing. Down the road someone will legalize it simply because,as I said already,it's basically already legal. Trust me. I lived in the East end for a few years,there are many 'erotic massage' parlours. I had a friend who lived in Ville St-Pierre and there was one there too. In any case,check out the classifieds on  Craig's list,tons of sex for pay out in the open. Where are the police? It's tolerated. Just like illegal poker machines and cannabis was tolerated for years until it was finally legalized. Ever heard the term 'shit or get off the pot?' That makes things in gray areas of the law eventually and inevitably becoming controlled by government. Always.  BTW, 20 year olds don't typically frequent prostitutes or these massage parlours. It's overwhelmingly older people and that is not going to change.

They are not legal which is why Laval just closed 19 of them. Tolerated and legal is not the same thing. 

Good on Laval. No crack downs in Montreal. Coderre said he would and he didn't and even he said not abolish these massage parlours but to keep them away from schools and residential areas. If I was inclined to I can get blown for $50 at one of these establishments any day I'd like to. It's been that way for years. The other shoe hitting the floor. Just watch.

Escort services leave the sex part up to the people concerned so the escort service isn't breaking the law. The transaction takes place in private so difficult to bust anyone unless police are willing to go undercover but they could only arrest the man. I doubt they will go that far. Escort services are likely to keep on trucking as they have been because they are so lowkey. Nothing takes place on the premises. 

That may be true but it's prostitution. You can call it whatever you like but that's what it is. And escort businesses have been busted in the past. It really doesn't happen much at all. These services are openly advertised in the yellow pages for fuck sake.

It has already joined the ranks of the untouchable unless the law is unconstitutional which I doubt. Abortion and prostitution law were both addressed by the Supreme Court because they were legally challenged not because any politician chose to deal with those subjects. Cannabis was addressed because Trudeau saw the upside. It instantly labeled him as progressive. In the US individual states started legalizing because citizens can demand referendums and a group got enough signatures to do it. Other than they are both illegal there is no similarity between cannabis and prostitution. 

Be happy Singh wants to spare drug addicts criminal records. 

The Liberals are to the left of the NDP in regards to cannbis legalization. You keep talking about 'decriminalization' whatever that means. But it sounds to me like the NDP want drugs to go into a gray area where it is tolerated but could be busted at any time the police choose to. Bad policy.

BTW.you used to cheerlead the Liberals now you're cheerleading the NDP,you're all over the place and as much as I'd like an NDP government I think you are giving them too much credit and exaggerating how progressive the party is and Singh himself. Put down the pom poms. Talk minus Action equals nothing. And if the NDP won't take a firm coherent stand on that issue,it means nothing. Decriminalization. What does that really mean?

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
 The Liberals are to the left of the NDP in regards to cannbis legalization.  

No they aren't. That was all Tom Mulcair and his cohorts. Not "the NDP".

alan smithee wrote:
But it sounds to me like the NDP want drugs to go into a gray area where it is tolerated but could be busted at any time the police choose to. Bad policy.  

Nothing grey about it. Selling drugs stays illegal. Users are not breaking the law.

Concerning prostitution, only time will tell which one of us is correct. This isn't the place to argue it. 2019 isn't the year to put it in an election platform and I don't believe either Trudeau or Singh would agree to it.

As to "cheerleading" first for Trudeau, then for Singh, I am not "cheerleading". Are men cheerleading when they support a candidate however strongly? 

I supported Trudeau because I wanted cannabis legalization and Mulcair kept saying stupid stuff that showed me he didn't have the necessary political instincts to win. His election platform proved it. 

Now I've experienced a Trudeau government. It's pretty much as expected. Cannabis will be legal before the next election. Other than that he's mediocre. Trade deals are my number one concern and Trudeau is selling us down the river on that. Basic income doesn't make up for it even if it happens. 

On Singh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagmeet_Singh

Singh was born on January 2, 1979 in ScarboroughOntario, to Harmeet Kaur and Jagtaran Singh,[12] immigrant parents from the Indian state of Punjab. His mother Harmeet is from Ghudani Khurd while his father Jagtaran is from Thikriwala.[13] His great grandfather was Sewa Singh Thikriwala, a revolutionary who fought against British occupation in India.[14] Singh grew up in St. John'sNewfoundland and Windsor, Ontario,[1]and attended high school at the Detroit Country Day School, in Beverly Hills, Michigan, graduating in 1997. He obtained a Bachelor of Sciencedegree in biology from the University of Western Ontario in 2001 and a Bachelor of Laws degree from York University's Osgoode Hall Law School in 2005. He was called to the Bar of the Law Society of Upper Canada in 2006.[15] He is fluent in EnglishFrenchHindi, and Punjabi.[16]

He worked as a criminal defence lawyer in the Greater Toronto Area before entering politics, first at the law firm Pinkofskys, then at his own practice, Singh Law, which he established with his brother Gurratan Singh.[1][17] During his time as a lawyer he offered free legal rights seminars across Ontario and provided pro bono legal counsel for people and community organizations in need. In a Toronto Star article published January 9, 2012, Singh stated that his background in criminal defence contributed to his decision to enter politics, particularly his work advocating for the protection of rights entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[9].

At that link you will find a list of progressive legislation he introduced as an MPP.

I will not predict a Singh win this early on as I did with Trudeau because he is on a completely different playing field. Reading about him, his priorities, watching how well he presents himself, sold me. 

I'm not afraid of the Conservatives anymore. Harper did his worst. In my opinion Conservatives are on a permanent decline and will eventually be replaced by the Liberals although that could take decades. If they get in through a split vote Canadians now have the example of BC opposition kicking the Liberals out. The Liberals propped up the Conservatives all those years because they were in such a weak position with unpopular leaders. Trudeau propping up Scheer would not be at all the same thing. Trudeau hung his hat on progressive. He would have to work with the NDP to unseat Scheer if he were to win, and if Trudeau gets a minority he will still have to work with the NDP.

Don't get me wrong, I still predict that Trudeau will win another majority. I'm just very impressed by Singh and hope that others feel the same way as they get to know him. His engagement and marriage will help with that. He still won't be well known until we are into the election period. I think he will be great in the debates. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Fair enough. You make complete sense. I agree,the prostitution issue is not happening any time soon. I just feel that inevitably it will and much like cannabis it will be accepted by a majority of Canadians. As I said,maybe in 10 or 15 years. And thanks for the link.

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
alan smithee wrote:
 The Liberals are to the left of the NDP in regards to cannbis legalization.  
No they aren't. That was all Tom Mulcair and his cohorts. Not "the NDP".

In fact the current official policy of the NDP on marijuana is decriminalization. Page 13, link "Policy Book" on www.ndp.ca home page. The convention coming up in February can change this, of course.

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2017/Documents/2016_POLICY-EN.pdf

 

Pondering

brookmere wrote:

Pondering wrote:
alan smithee wrote:
 The Liberals are to the left of the NDP in regards to cannbis legalization.  
No they aren't. That was all Tom Mulcair and his cohorts. Not "the NDP".

In fact the current official policy of the NDP on marijuana is decriminalization. Page 13, link "Policy Book" on www.ndp.ca home page. The convention coming up in February can change this, of course.

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2017/Documents/2016_POLICY-EN.pdf

That is because Mulcair and his team would not allow a vote. Six different ridings proposed a vote on legalization. The committee who decides what gets voted on changed it to a vote to reaffirm the NDP's position.  I'll never be a party person because parties change depending on who is leading them.  Mulcair is an old-school Liberal. Trudeau did a bunch of good stuff. He broke the Conservative hold on power, cannabis will be legalized, scientists were unmuzzled. We have a gender balanced cabinet. He's done more for First Nations. He ended the worship of balanced budgets. He improved our global-standing. He's certainly better than a return to the Conservatives. 

But it is Singh that is highlighting income inequality.

How embarassing for the NDP to have to take their now regressive marijuana policy out of the policy book. Do you think there will be a vote?

 

 

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Is there any reason not to support him? Looks to me like he is solidly left of Trudeau and I don't think Trudeau can outflank him on any issue.

I agree.  I don't anticipate the Liberals running a similar campaign in 2019 than they did in 2015 (IE, attempting to project an "outflank the NDP on the left" campaign).  One reason is that Trudeau doesn't have to since he's quite popular (though that could change).  And the other reason is that they simply couldn't do it.  The stuff Singh is talking about is far to the left of where the Libs would be willing to go, and so I don't see any opening for them to "outflank" the NDP.  Also, I note that Scheer (similar to Ontario's Patrick Brown) is attempting to run as non-frightening a campaign as possible, meaning he's avoiding nonsense like the "Barbaric Practices Hotline" and instead is focusing on fiscal issues.  The Cons will try to lump the Libs and NDP together as dangerous anti-business leftists (see https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/12/29/conservative-leader-schee...).  The Libs won't want to play into this.  So, I anticipate the Libs will stick with how they're the true fiscal managers who are growing the economy through trade and investment and also are managing social issues better than the Cons.  Also, I figure the Libs will try and ignore the NDP, or simply write them off as dangerous unrealistic anti-trade and anti-business types.

Unionist

brookmere wrote:

In fact the current official policy of the NDP on marijuana is decriminalization.

Only "possession" is decriminalized according to their policy. Not growing, not buying, not selling (no matter how small the quantity). True decriminalization would be a strong step, far better than so-called "legalization" (which can mean anything any government and regulators want). The NDP has never gone there.

mark_alfred

JusReign, the web comic, did an interview with Singh a month or so ago where they ask him about Quebec and whether he thinks he can win there.  Singh's answer to this and other issues is good.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOFqCEln3go

mark_alfred

Regarding sex trade work, NDP policy is:

NDP Policy Book wrote:

New Democrats believe in .. Protecting the health and safety of sex-trade workers.

So, NDP policy is pretty vague on this issue. 

Singh himself (via his leadership campaign site) has stated,

Jagmeet Singh wrote:

In keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision in Bedford v. Canada, Jagmeet is determined to end the criminalization of sex work that puts so many at risk.

voice of the damned

mark_alfred wrote:

Regarding sex trade work, NDP policy is:

NDP Policy Book wrote:

New Democrats believe in .. Protecting the health and safety of sex-trade workers.

So, NDP policy is pretty vague on this issue. 

Singh himself (via his leadership campaign site) has stated,

Jagmeet Singh wrote:

In keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision in Bedford v. Canada, Jagmeet is determined to end the criminalization of sex work that puts so many at risk.

Does he have any comment on whether or not the Nordic Model counts as "ending the criminalization of sex work"? Because that's likely what the whole issue is eventually going to turn on.

Pondering

I enjoyed watching the interview.

I doubt Singh will propose legalization of sex work. Electoral suicide. He would be painted as the man who wants a brothel on every corner. He would be accused of believing that men have a right to women's bodies. He would have feminists attacking and he would be praised by sexy sex workers. It would suck the air out of every conversation. Jokes would abound, editorialists would have a blast. Singh will not promise to legalize sex work nor will he do it. No one is challenging the law's legality. There is no reason for him to take any particular position. 

He has used the term "decriminalization" when referring to hard-drug users. So, decriminalization probably refers to the sex workers not the customers. The current law allows for body guards. 

This drives me nuts. :

By all accounts, Kouvalis calculated that Leitch’s only hope was to veer sharply right and parrot the populism of the American president, based on polling that half the Conservative membership was sympathetic to Trump’s anti-elite message.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-shunned-values-crusader-kell...

Trump is anti-elite, the left are the elites. It's the twilight zone. 

Singh has a very tough road ahead, lots of potholes, probably some landslides. I feel that the criticisms of him are harsh. Mulcair did worse with little criticism. I remember the incident when he said that perhaps the bilingualism requirement for Supreme Court judges could be set aside if someone spoke an indigenous language. There were some snide remarks about Singh not knowing NDP policy. Anyway Guy Caron whispered in his ear and he backtracked instantly. There has been no hoopla over it in Quebec. No cries of indignation. 

That incident made me smile. His backtrack was instant and dignified. He moved on immediately. Politicians will have flubs. He has the ability to recover quickly. The second part that made me smile was Guy Caron was at his side and whispered in his ear and Singh listened. Guy Caron was my choice in part because he is an economist. He would make a great finance minister. It reflects well on Singh that he has chose to keep Caron by his side. Who Singh chooses to surround himself with will tell us a lot about the direction he will take. His focus on income inequality will reveal just who the elites are and how they are getting there. 

Maybe I'm wrong about him, maybe he is a dud. If so he will prove it. That will be soon enough to start picking at him. 

 

NDPP

Open Letter To Jagmeet Singh: NDP's Reactionary Foreign Policy Positions Must Be Changed    -     by John Ryan

https://www.newcoldwar.org/open-letter-jagmeet-singh-ndps-reactionary-fo...

"We reproduce the following open letter in full. It deserves wide circulation in Canada. As the letter shows, the foreign policy of Canada's New Democratic Party has been indistinguishable from the right-wing interventionist and warmongering policies followed by the Liberal Party government and its foreign minister Chrystia Freeland.

The cross-party consensus in the Canadian Parliament on foreign policy has a number of serious implications. Not least, as Ryan shows, it casts serious doubt on the NDP's appeal to socialist tradition. It also leaves Canadians with a severe democratic deficit because the widespread anti-war - not to mention anti-fascist sentiment among Canadians has no voice in their parliament."

Pondering

Listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1tWqZHBGQs

He did a fantastic job of bringing the Aga Khan topic around to different sets of rules for the wealthy. 

voice of the damned

I doubt Singh will propose legalization of sex work. Electoral suicide. He would be painted as the man who wants a brothel on every corner. He would be accused of believing that men have a right to women's bodies. He would have feminists attacking and he would be praised by sexy sex workers. It would suck the air out of every conversation. Jokes would abound, editorialists would have a blast. Singh will not promise to legalize sex work nor will he do it. No one is challenging the law's legality. There is no reason for him to take any particular position. 

I tend to agree with this. For a whole myriad of reasons(some of them feminist-based, others rooted elsewhere), most people are NOT going to be as laidback about legalized prostitution as they are about legalized marijuana. At the very least, no one is going to want a red-light district in their neighborhood, and you're gonna see hundreds of NIMBY movements coast-to-coast.

That said, IF the government passes a Nordic-model law, and IF the SCOC says "Nope, sorry, that's not gonna square with our previous ruling", then whoever is Prime Minister at that time might have no choice but to either invoke Section 33(these days, something of a political taboo), or to legalize both the buying and selling of sex.

But if they go for the latter option, they can just say "Well, we didn't really want this, but that damn Supreme Court, so whaddya gonna do, eh?"    

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Red light districts in people's neighbourhoods?  Um,no. In Montreal we have Isle Ste- Hélene where the casino is. And last I checked almost if every major city in Canada has an Industrial park. So it doesn't have to be in anyone's neighbourhood. And if red light districts were restricted except for those particular areas,the NIMBY arguement is dead.

We should have a Nordic model or a Dutch model or a German model. I believe in Holland they have something similar to what I said about Industrial parks where you can buy and sell sex in the comfort of your own car.I think it's actually a parking lot. Their red light districts are not just the window shopping you'll find in the centre of the city.

Personally,I think if sex work was restricted to Industrial parks,they can even build cheap motels that would act as brothels.

Why the fuck can't Canadians grow up and get over their puritan  mentality. Prostitution and drug use is a fact of life and will never go away. Learn to live with it or go move to the country and hide your head in the sand with the rest of the hicks and bumpkins.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
 Why the fuck can't Canadians grow up and get over their puritan  mentality. Prostitution and drug use is a fact of life and will never go away. Learn to live with it or go move to the country and hide your head in the sand with the rest of the hicks and bumpkins.

We are only discussing how it impacts politics not the morality of it. Many crimes large and small will always be with us. That doesn't mean we make them legal. 

voice of the damned

Smithee wrote:

We should have a Nordic model or a Dutch model or a German model. I believe in Holland they have something similar to what I said about Industrial parks where you can buy and sell sex in the comfort of your own car.

I don't think the "Nordic Model" means what you think it means. Under the Nordic Model, you can NOT buy sex, in an industrial park or anywhere else.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

We are only discussing how it impacts politics not the morality of it. Many crimes large and small will always be with us. That doesn't mean we make them legal. 

Well that arguement reminds me of the arguements against cannabis legalization. 'Oh.we're going to need more police ' ?????? Jesus Christ or '' We're going to need more fire fighters'  Again,what planet do these people live on?

Here in Québec,there has been a literal epidemic of runaways being recruted by pimps right in front of the government buildings that are responsible for this 'juvenile deliquency' and the safety of these girls.

THAT is a crime. THAT is exploitation. THAT is a threat to our youth.

With sex work regulated,just like drugs,a myriad of crimes disappear. That's a fact.

And BTW,someone mentioned the morality end to this arguement by saying legal sex work and red light districts would create hoardes of NIMBY protests. That's why I brought it up.

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

I tend to agree with this. For a whole myriad of reasons(some of them feminist-based, others rooted elsewhere), most people are NOT going to be as laidback about legalized prostitution as they are about legalized marijuana. At the very least, no one is going to want a red-light district in their neighborhood, and you're gonna see hundreds of NIMBY movements coast-to-coast.

That said, IF the government passes a Nordic-model law, and IF the SCOC says "Nope, sorry, that's not gonna square with our previous ruling", then whoever is Prime Minister at that time might have no choice but to either invoke Section 33(these days, something of a political taboo), or to legalize both the buying and selling of sex.

But if they go for the latter option, they can just say "Well, we didn't really want this, but that damn Supreme Court, so whaddya gonna do, eh?"    

Our new law passed Dec. 6th, 2014 is Nordic-based. That's 3 years now with no challenge. I think that's because lawyers believe the new law would pass constitutional muster. 

voice of the damned

And BTW,someone mentioned the morality end to this arguement by saying legal sex work and red light districts would create hoardes of NIMBY protests.

A NIMBY argument isn't neccessarily a "moral" argument. In fact, it's arguable that the whole idea of NIMBY is that the complainant doesn't advance moral arguments against the thing, he just says he doesn't want it being done in close proximity to himself.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

I don't think the "Nordic Model" means what you think it means. Under the Nordic Model, you can NOT buy sex, in an industrial park or anywhere else.

Hmm..my bad. So no thank you to the Nordic model. I'll go back to the Dutch and German model. It's completely legal.

Pondering

@alan smithee

Who fronted the fight for decriminalization? A few old women with some tiny demonstrations of support. This isn't a voting pool to chase. 

Singh's focus on income inequality and precarious work is spot on. He must also champion the reform of our relationship with First Nations. The protection of our healthcare system is another priority. He has already committed to decriminalization of the use of hard drugs and the end of carding. He has to address racism. Daycare and basic income plans are very high up as additional line items on the platform. He has to have a foreign policy plan and address trade deals. He has to address climate change and Canada's oil industry and arms industry. Those are the important topics. Not prostitution.

You seem to want to argue the morality of prostitution law or whether or not it's justified or whatever. This isn't the thread for it. Politically it isn't on the radar at all. It's not something he will be questioned about on mainstream media. It will be asked at colleges or during interviews with progressive news sources as a potential "gotcha" question. His best bet is to stick with his current answer. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

@alan smithee

Who fronted the fight for decriminalization? A few old women with some tiny demonstrations of support. This isn't a voting pool to chase. 

Singh's focus on income inequality and precarious work is spot on. He must also champion the reform of our relationship with First Nations. The protection of our healthcare system is another priority. He has already committed to decriminalization of the use of hard drugs and the end of carding. He has to address racism. Daycare and basic income plans are very high up as additional line items on the platform. He has to have a foreign policy plan and address trade deals. He has to address climate change and Canada's oil industry and arms industry. Those are the important topics. Not prostitution.

You seem to want to argue the morality of prostitution law or whether or not it's justified or whatever. This isn't the thread for it. Politically it isn't on the radar at all. It's not something he will be questioned about on mainstream media. It will be asked at colleges or during interviews with progressive news sources as a potential "gotcha" question. His best bet is to stick with his current answer. 

Fine. But prostitution was brought up.

The progressive thing to do with that issue is to legalize and regulate. Just like drugs. You just brought up decriminalization. I will respond. It's confusing,unpoliceable and not progressive.

Down the road prostitution WILL be on the radar. Like it or not. And when it is,the progressive answer is legalization and regulation. Like drugs.

But this is pointless. There's not much of a reason to talk to you about this. I'm WAY far to the left than anyone on this board in regards to drugs and prostitution. There is no conversation to be had on this board about those 2 things.

But it doesn't surprise me much. There are a lot of Conservative apologists and cheerleaders. No leftist in their right mind would support the Tories. All because of this bullshit prejudice of any and all Liberal governments no matter how close they come to progressive policy. Pathetic.

I'm a Social leftist who puts social progression ABOVE all.  The NDP,unfortunately is (A) too close to the centre socially and (B) not in a position to form a government. I regret that fact but it's an undeniable and inconvenient truth.

Many here would rather a Tory government if the NDP fails. And as a solidly left wing progressive,I find that sad to the point of laughable and a right wing attitude.

A socially progresive society is a healthy society.

And then you all expect progressive change. Good luck with that.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
Fine. But prostitution was brought up.

You had it in your list of positions you wanted a political party to take in post 136. It seems like a list of libertarian positions coupled with some socialist programs. The only argument against it being presented here is that it would be electorally damaging. 

alan smithee wrote:
But this is pointless. There's not much of a reason to talk to you about this. I'm WAY far to the left than anyone on this board in regards to drugs and prostitution.

Libertarian not left. The left has no problem regulating to protect society. Seatbelt laws are fine and dandy.

Not everyone on the left agrees that prostitution is socially progressive. You sound more like a libertarian than a progressive.

alan smithee wrote:
The NDP,unfortunately is (A) too close to the centre socially and (B) not in a position to form a government. I regret that fact but it's an undeniable and inconvenient truth.

The NDP made it to first place in 2015. They are consistently high enough in polls asking which parties voters consider. Typically a party on the left gains support through inspiring more people to vote. I'm not saying it would be easy but the NDP does have a longshot at first place.

alan smithee wrote:
I'm a Social leftist who puts social progression ABOVE all. 

What does "social leftist" even mean? The NDP is rooted in the workers movement, unions, which is all about economic justice. They are egalitarian not libertarian. There are many in the NDP who are sympathetic to legalization based on worker rights on the assumption that it makes it safer. There are others who believe it cannot be made safe enough therefore it subjects too many workers to too much harm. Either way it is looked at through the lens of worker rights.

alan smithee wrote:
Many here would rather a Tory government if the NDP fails. And as a solidly left wing progressive,I find that sad to the point of laughable and a right wing attitude.

I haven't seen that at all. Do you expect the NDP to just fold up their tent and go home so the Liberals can win? Many NDP supporters believe that their voter pool lies primarily in the same place as the Liberals. That doesn't mean they would rather the Conservatives win than the Liberals.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

 

You had it in your list of positions you wanted a political party to take in post 136. It seems like a list of libertarian positions coupled with some socialist programs. The only argument against it being presented here is that it would be electorally damaging. 

LOLOL.. You know shit about me if you think I'm a libertarian. When it comes to social issues e.g. minimum income, a 30 hour work week, a living wage for all workers (never mind $15/hr ,I'm talking annual income I think should be at minimum $30k/yr),12 month paid maternity leave,expanding medicare to cover dental,eye care,prescriptions,sex therapy for handicapped persons -- for example) a gauranteed 6 week vacation for all workers,gauranteed housing etc..It just so happens I think drugs and prostitution should be legal..I'm a classic European social democrat -- sorry.

I haven't seen that at all. Do you expect the NDP to just fold up their tent and go home so the Liberals can win? Many NDP supporters believe that their voter pool lies primarily in the same place as the Liberals. That doesn't mean they would rather the Conservatives win than the Liberals.

I suggest you read most threads and double check. People make themselves clear here.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
never mind $15/hr ,I'm talking annual income I think should be at minimum $30k/yr

That's almost exactly what working full time for $15 works out to.  40 hours x 50 weeks = 2000 hours.  2000 x 15 = 30,000.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
never mind $15/hr ,I'm talking annual income I think should be at minimum $30k/yr

That's almost exactly what working full time for $15 works out to.  40 hours x 50 weeks = 2000 hours.  2000 x 15 = 30,000.

 (a) that's before taxes and (b) I said I support a 30 hour work week. So we're talking about a minimum wage closer to $20/hr

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Wages and salaries are conventionally calculated before taxes.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Wages and salaries are conventionally calculated before taxes.

I would cut income tax to everyone making $500k/yr and under and heavily tax everyone making $1M/yr and above. Keep current income tax for those earning between the 2.But I'd slightly increase sales tax.

The idea would be for workers making up to $500k/yr to keep most of their income before taxes. The increase of tax on the rich and slight increase in sales tax would go into paying for infrastructure projects. Legal and regulated drug taxes would be shared with the populace.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK, you've got your platform nailed down.

But $15/hr is the same as $30K/yr., whether before or after taxes.  It's just a different number after taxes (regardless of what those taxes are).

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK, you've got your platform nailed down.

But $15/hr is the same as $30K/yr., whether before or after taxes.  It's just a different number after taxes (regardless of what those taxes are).

Well,I was called a libertarian. If I am one,I'm a bad one. Check my policy list (which I only named a few)

And I disagree with you. I want to tax from the top progressively to the bottom. If I cut low to middle class taxes,they end up with more money in their pockets. Money that would almost certainly circulate as they are more likely to spend. This sustains jobs and even INCREASES jobs. Not to mention infrastructure spending. Montréal for example wants to extend the blue metro line, PLUS create a 'pink line'. Progressive economic policies could pay for that without taking money from the very bottom. It would be taken by the very top.

It's simple mathematics. If your taxes are cut,you have more money in your pocket. It's simple. Just ask all the corporations who collect generous welfare payments and don't necessarily pay tax. Why do you think we have billionaires? I'd put an immediate end to that.

mark_alfred

Chantal Hébert feels that .. <The chapter of the TPP saga that opened this week will find the Liberals more squarely in the sights of the NDP and some of its activist and union allies.>

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/01/24/trudeaus-paci...

Tom Parkin also wrote about this, giving detail as to how the auto sector and its unions are not happy about the TPP.   

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/parkin-with-tpp-trudeau-throws-...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well,I was called a libertarian. If I am one,I'm a bad one.

There are (at least) two different types of libertarian.

One is what I call a "big L" Libertarian -- someone who believes that the government should solely exist to protect them from others; that there should be no taxes; that all should pay their way or be trampled.

The second is a civil libertarian, who believes that the State should not infringe upon the freedom of anyone unless that freedom can be shown to clearly and directly deny the freedom of another.

FWIW, Alan, if you're a libertarian I suspect you're the second type.  Anyone who remembers Skdadl should remember that she was that type, too. 

Quote:
And I disagree with you. I want to tax from the top progressively to the bottom. If I cut low to middle class taxes,they end up with more money in their pockets. Money that would almost certainly circulate as they are more likely to spend.

What makes you say we disagree?

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Chantal Hébert feels that .. <The chapter of the TPP saga that opened this week will find the Liberals more squarely in the sights of the NDP and some of its activist and union allies.>

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/01/24/trudeaus-paci...

Tom Parkin also wrote about this, giving detail as to how the auto sector and its unions are not happy about the TPP.   

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/parkin-with-tpp-trudeau-throws-...

I hope people will be willing to demonstrate against this. 

mark_alfred

Jagmeet Singh Speaks with Reporters Following Caucus Meeting.  He mostly speaks of believing survivors and changing the culture of violence against women in response to journalists questions surrounding Brown and others.  Also, he speaks of inequality.  And, Ruth Ellen Brosseau is now the NDP House Leader, with Julian moved to finance. 

http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/headline-politics/episodes/58529054

josh

mark_alfred wrote:

Chantal Hébert feels that .. <The chapter of the TPP saga that opened this week will find the Liberals more squarely in the sights of the NDP and some of its activist and union allies.>

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/01/24/trudeaus-paci...

Tom Parkin also wrote about this, giving detail as to how the auto sector and its unions are not happy about the TPP.   

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/parkin-with-tpp-trudeau-throws-...

They have to be out front and hammer away at this on a consustent basis in order to gain a political advantage from it.  Which hasn’t always been the case in the past.

voice of the damned

Magoo wrote:

One is what I call a "big L" Libertarian -- someone who believes that the government should solely exist to protect them from others; that there should be no taxes; that all should pay their way or be trampled.

Not to be pedantic, but I think in politics, the phrasing "Big [first letter of the ideology's name]" is usually used to designate someone who is a member of a party bearing that name. So, by that system, a "big L Libertarian" would be a member of the political party called the Libertarian Party Of Canada, for example. A "small l libertarian" would be someone who subscribes to libertarian principles(however defined) while not neccessarily being a party member.

The distinction is mostly heard in relation to the Liberal Party of Canada, with "big L" meaning someone who is a party member, though he or she may not be particularly liberal(eg. Tom Wappel). Though of course, liberal Liberals are "Big L Liberals" too, and also "small l liberals".

With the different types of libertarian ideology, I think the distinction is usually between American style(your property-rights zealots, who are basically Lockean liberals) and European style libertarians(for whom I prefer the term "anarchist").  I think civil libertarians could be in either camp, or neither. Most of the ACLU types in the US seem to be New Deal-type Democrats, who are neither property-rights freaks nor anarchists.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Well,I was called a libertarian. If I am one,I'm a bad one.

There are (at least) two different types of libertarian.

One is what I call a "big L" Libertarian -- someone who believes that the government should solely exist to protect them from others; that there should be no taxes; that all should pay their way or be trampled.

The second is a civil libertarian, who believes that the State should not infringe upon the freedom of anyone unless that freedom can be shown to clearly and directly deny the freedom of another.

FWIW, Alan, if you're a libertarian I suspect you're the second type.  Anyone who remembers Skdadl should remember that she was that type, too. 

Quote:
And I disagree with you. I want to tax from the top progressively to the bottom. If I cut low to middle class taxes,they end up with more money in their pockets. Money that would almost certainly circulate as they are more likely to spend.

What makes you say we disagree?

Well I disagree with your assessment. My views on personal freedom may confuse people I'm libertarian but my sociasl beliefs are far from libertarian.  I think my politics of supporting a minimum income and a living wage (for example,all my views support big government and a welfare state and I'm not at all ashamed of that) is certainly not libertarian. I think most people would call those ideals  socialist or even communist. I don't think I'm a communist.

Libertarians hate government. Quite honestly,I believe in big government and a welfare state,does that sound libertarian? I don 't think so. If so,there are a lot of libertarians on this board. I doubt any of them would call themselves libertarian.

Is it because I believe you should be free to tweek your conscience,drugs being legal? Well,that's not unprecedented. Portugal decriminalized all drugs 15 years ago or so. I find decriminalization confusing. I don't agree with that. Shit or get off the pot. It's illegal or it's legal,pick a side. Norway recently legalized drugs and I recognize myself a Scandanavian socialist or social democrat. In the US I'd be called a radical communist. That's hyperbolic and a smear but I wouldn't expect anything less from Americans. There's where your supposed libertarians breed. Along with radical far right anarchists,corporatist supremacists and other sociopaths. I definitely don't belong in that category.

I am sincerely happy we agree with my 'tax plan'. Again,I believe that the more you earn the more you should be taxed. I'd tax the shit out of million or billion dollar inheritances. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. But hey,people are free to call me what they like. I know what I am.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Norway recently legalized drugs and I recognize myself a Scandanavian socialist or social democrat.

No they didn't. 

Sveinung Stensland, deputy chairman of the Storting Health Committee, told Norwegian publication VG: “It is important to emphasise that we do not legalise cannabis and other drugs, but we decriminalise.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/norway-parliament-drugs-decrimi...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Norway recently legalized drugs and I recognize myself a Scandanavian socialist or social democrat.

No they didn't. 

Sveinung Stensland, deputy chairman of the Storting Health Committee, told Norwegian publication VG: “It is important to emphasise that we do not legalise cannabis and other drugs, but we decriminalise.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/norway-parliament-drugs-decrimi...

Does this mean I really am a libertarian? LOL

Looky there,I was misinformed from another news article. But here is what is inherently wrong with decriminalization ;

 !It will still be a ‘ban on use and possession of drugs.’  However, the two major parties agree to ‘change the authorities’ reactions to persons taken for use and possession of drugs, from punishment to help, treatment and follow-up.’

W​hat an utter FAILURE of a policy. And this is what Singh and the NDP want? So technically if you are in possession of cannabis you will be forced into treatment? What a farce.

I'll look to Dutch law. Hard drugs are illegal but soft drugs (cannabis,psylocibin and MDMA) are completely legal. Legal drugs should not be limited to cannabis -- that's merely a start.

Where do you think it's going to go? It's clear that with soft drugs being decriminalized and legalized,other drugs will follow. Not for personal freedom though. It will become a health issue. As it stands,BC has virtually decriminalized heroin and with safe injection sites gaining acceptance,heroin will be decriminalized in most if not all the country (maybe not the Prairies,maybe not Quebec who has come out as disappointingly conservative in regards to drugs) Next step in BC or at least Vancouver,with a heroin epidemic decades long and with the threat of fentanyl being sold as heroin,the latter will be legalized and regulated. Wait for it. It is going to happen sooner than you think,give or take Canada being poisoned with a Conservative governmet in the next few years.

It's called progress. And there is only one federal party in Canada that can not only stop it but repeal it and that is the wretched Tories.

 

WWWTT

voice of the damned wrote:

Magoo wrote:

One is what I call a "big L" Libertarian -- someone who believes that the government should solely exist to protect them from others; that there should be no taxes; that all should pay their way or be trampled.

Not to be pedantic, but I think in politics, the phrasing "Big [first letter of the ideology's name]" is usually used to designate someone who is a member of a party bearing that name. So, by that system, a "big L Libertarian" would be a member of the political party called the Libertarian Party Of Canada, for example. A "small l libertarian" would be someone who subscribes to libertarian principles(however defined) while not neccessarily being a party member.

The distinction is mostly heard in relation to the Liberal Party of Canada, with "big L" meaning someone who is a party member, though he or she may not be particularly liberal(eg. Tom Wappel). Though of course, liberal Liberals are "Big L Liberals" too, and also "small l liberals".

With the different types of libertarian ideology, I think the distinction is usually between American style(your property-rights zealots, who are basically Lockean liberals) and European style libertarians(for whom I prefer the term "anarchist").  I think civil libertarians could be in either camp, or neither. Most of the ACLU types in the US seem to be New Deal-type Democrats, who are neither property-rights freaks nor anarchists.

Thats it Voice of the damned, you get right in there with a magnifying glass in one hand and a blow horn in the other! Lol! Thanks for introducing the word pedantic to me with the great example!

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
 I'll look to Dutch law. Hard drugs are illegal but soft drugs (cannabis,psylocibin and MDMA) are completely legal.  

Not true. All drugs remain illegal including cannabis. Cafes are tolerated but production remains illegal. 

alan smithee wrote:
W​hat an utter FAILURE of a policy. And this is what Singh and the NDP want? So technically if you are in possession of cannabis you will be forced into treatment? What a farce.  

No, they are referring to hard drugs, and not forced treatment offered treatment instead of being arrested. There aren't enough treatment places for all the addicts. The NDP does not plan on recriminalizing cannabis. If they were it would be huge news. The Conservatives wouldn't roll it back either. Once it's legal and the provinces have their systems set up there will be no going back. 

I don't believe heroin will ever be legal to sell but it won't be part of Singh's platform and it won't be part of the Liberal platform either. 

As things stand, the NDP decriminalizing possession of hard drugs for users is the most progressive drug policy of any party. 

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
As things stand, the NDP decriminalizing possession of hard drugs for users is the most progressive drug policy of any party.

Except it isn't NDP policy. It's the personal position of Jagmeet Singh. Of course the party has the opportunity to make it policy in February and probably will. What interests me is how the party will adapt its policy to the fait accompli of marijuana legalization, which the policy currently does not support.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
 I'll look to Dutch law. Hard drugs are illegal but soft drugs (cannabis,psylocibin and MDMA) are completely legal.  

Not true. All drugs remain illegal including cannabis. Cafes are tolerated but production remains illegal. 

WRONG.

It's legal to possess up to 5 grams of cannabis. And citizens can legally grow up to 5 plants for personal use.

' Smart Shops' used to sell mushrooms up to 2008 when they were banned. They now sell truffles which are the same but weaker. If truffles aren't good enough for you,Smart Sholps will sell you the equipment and instructions to cultivate mushrooms at home.

Legal.

In fact there was a dairy farmer outside Amsterdam who discovered psylocibin on his pasteur. He then started a business of cultivating,packaging and selling magic mushrooms..LEGALLY.

When they were outlawed in 2008,he found a loophole and has been cultivating and packaging magic truffles..LEGALLY.

A guide to Amsterdam Smart Shops

https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/amsterdam/the-guide-to-amsterdam...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_shop

So nice try in contradicting me. Didn't work. Oh well.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

No, they are referring to hard drugs, and not forced treatment offered treatment instead of being arrested. There aren't enough treatment places for all the addicts. The NDP does not plan on recriminalizing cannabis. If they were it would be huge news. The Conservatives wouldn't roll it back either. Once it's legal and the provinces have their systems set up there will be no going back. 

I don't believe heroin will ever be legal to sell but it won't be part of Singh's platform and it won't be part of the Liberal platform either. 

As things stand, the NDP decriminalizing possession of hard drugs for users is the most progressive drug policy of any party. 

First of all,you under estimate the Connservatives. Especially now as the Republican party has turned into the Alex Jones party. And you're kidding yourself if you think they won't cater to their So-Con base. For christ sake,Scheer himself is a So-Con.

And as pointed out by someone else (forgive me,I forgot your name) decriminalizing hard drugs is Something Singh has said. It is not NDP policy therefore,your incessant cheerleading is all for naught. Not until it becomes part of official policy,IF it becomes official policy. So claiming the NDP is the most progressive party for drug (hard drugs in this case) decriminalization is unfounded. At this point you're dreaming that it is so. And if the Liberals follow through with legalization Canada will become the first G7 country to fully legalize cannabis. There's your progress.

I don't believe the NDP platform has changed at all since Mulcair. And it's not clear if that will change under Singh. Politicians say A LOT of things. Few act on them,unless it's something that will hurt Canadians,not help Canadians.

We're a centrist country that leans slightly to the right. As it stands,that wouldn't change with the NDP. UNLESS they change their platform and officially make decriminalizing hard drugs NDP policy.

Right now that is all talk. That and a buck fifty will buy you a coffee.  

cco

alan smithee wrote:

I don't believe the NDP platform has changed at all since Mulcair. And it's not clear if that will change under Singh. Politicians say A LOT of things. Few act on them,unless it's something that will hurt Canadians,not help Canadians.

We're a centrist country that leans slightly to the right. As it stands,that wouldn't change with the NDP. UNLESS they change their platform and officially make decriminalizing hard drugs NDP policy.

There are essentially two views of where NDP policy comes from: one (the official party-constitutional view), that convention decides, as the sovereign governing instance of the party, and the leader then proceeds to implement it, and two (how it's worked in practice for as long as I can remember), that the leader tells us what party policy is, and we figure out how to cheerlead for it.

If you believe the second view is the way it should be ("it's not clear if [the party platform] will change under Singh"), then we'll all just have to wait in suspense until Singh reveals our platform in 2019. I, for one, will be going to Ottawa next month to try to affect the platform that way. And if Singh runs things the way Mulcair did, then in 2020, there is one power convention unambiguously does retain: triggering a new leadership race.

NDPP

Failed NDP Leadership Candidate Angus Tweets, Then Deletes Criticism of Party Under New Leader Singh

http://www.hilltimes.com/2018/01/24/failed-ndp-leadership-candidate-angu...

"Charlie Angus wrote 'when a party believes that better Instagram tricks or gala planning is the path to success we lose touch.' Mr Singh has attracted press attention for his unique style sense even gracing the pages of GQ, where he was dubbed 'the incredibly well-dressed rising star in Canadian politics.' He currently boasts 148,000 followers and uses Instagram far more than the NDP's previous leader Tom Mulcair who only has 8,376 followers..."

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
So nice try in contradicting me. Didn't work. Oh well.

Actually you proved my point. It's not legal. That one business found a loophole to one product does not mean drugs are legal. No political party stepped forward and legalized it. 

alan smithee wrote:

Someone else (forgive me,I forgot your name) decriminalizing hard drugs is Something Singh has said. It is not NDP policy therefore,your incessant cheerleading is all for naught. Not until it becomes part of official policy,IF it becomes official policy. So claiming the NDP is the most progressive party for drug (hard drugs in this case) decriminalization is unfounded. At this point you're dreaming that it is so. And if the Liberals follow through with legalization Canada will become the first G7 country to fully legalize cannabis. There's your progress.

I don't believe the NDP platform has changed at all since Mulcair. And it's not clear if that will change under Singh. Politicians say A LOT of things. Few act on them,unless it's something that will hurt Canadians,not help Canadians.

We're a centrist country that leans slightly to the right. As it stands,that wouldn't change with the NDP. UNLESS they change their platform and officially make decriminalizing hard drugs NDP policy.

You are confusing policy and platform. I don't recall you being so skeptical when Trudeau announced his intention to legalize marijuana. The platform won't be out until 2019. Singh is the only leader even talking about taking that direction. It's more than any other party is offering. And yes, by election time cannabis should be legal therefore no longer an election issue. 

Even if it's deemed too controversial so doesn't make it into the platform addressing economic inequality is the litmus test of progressiveness not drug policy. 

As to the cheerleading crack, this is a thread about Singh so I'm going to comment on the things that Singh says. He is saying things I support. 

If Trudeau were also saying that hard drugs should be decriminalized I would see the point of skepticism given that it appears he will follow through on cannabis. But he isn't saying it. Singh is saying it. Singh is also the one talking about income inequality and tax havens. If Trudeau started talking about addressing those issues I would support him. Instead Trudeau just signed TPP and worked to keep the ISDS in CETA. 

I am all about comparisons. Three men have been put before me for judgement. Trudeau, Scheer, and Singh. Their qualities are only meaningful in relation to one another. I usually feel like I am voting for least bad. That is why I could accept and brush off criticisms of Trudeau. It didn't matter unless someone better was on offer and that wasn't the case with Mulcair (in my opinion). 

I would never rule out any party but Conservatives are always the worst of the bad based on social conservatism coupled with free market economics. Scheer runs true to form so he is out. That leaves Trudeau and Singh. 

Trudeau has been reasonably successful as PM. In many ways he has performed above my expectations but he is still decidedly neoliberal.

Singh is someone I don't see as "least bad". He is talking about growing inequality as an issue that needs to be addressed rather than claiming precarious employment is just the way things have to be. After Monreau said that he stayed finance minister.

Singh is saying the right things at this time. Trudeau is not. If that changes fine but I can only judge by right now. Right now Trudeau seems to have delivered all he has to offer me. As I expected or feared once in power Trudeau has garnered strong support for his performance. He will likely win another majority and a minority after that. We could be looking at a 16+ year reign.  

You didn't call me a cheerleader when I was supporting Trudeau over Mulcair (although others did).

Pages