In my opinion the majority of women who become involved in prostitution are harmed by it or regret it.
That's a funny thing to include. People do, and are allowed to do, all sorts of things they regret.
Google "tattoo removal" if you don't believe me.
And I'm purely guessing here, but I'm assuming that the CPC+BQ must have outnumbered the LPC+NDP, so if two leaders needed to agree on a vote of non-confidence, couldn't Harper have just had the leader of the BQ at the time (still Duceppe?) second the motion if Layton refused?
I'm not sure and don't feel like looking it up but Harper had tried and failed to bring down Martin earlier that year but the NDP made a deal with Martin instead. Layton later referred to this as "the first NDP budget" which left Harper, a relatively unknown entity at the time, associated with just the Bloc.
Harper was the new leader of a new party created from the remains of the Reform, Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives. He did not want to be seen as cosying up to the BQ. He wasn't willing to present another non-confidence vote without the assurance that the NDP would vote with him, not because he would have lost the vote, but because he didn't want the narrative to be that he and Duceppe brought down the government. Martin would have been able to use that against him in the subsequent election.
Harper and Layton made a two part deal.
http://bowjamesbow.ca/2005/11/10/brilliant.shtml
To understand the brilliance of NDP leader Jack Layton’s proposed motion to require Paul Martin to call an election in January instead of next week, you have to understand the tennis match that had been going on between Prime Minister Martin and Opposition Leader Harper in the lead-up.
As the (minor) bombshell of the first Gomery report struck, the Conservatives had to consider whether to try and bring down the government now or wait until Martin’s promised election call in February. Thanks to more democratic trickery on the part of the Liberals, Opposition Days — days when the oppostiion could most easily introduce a motion of non-confidence — were pushed back to next week, meaning that forcing an election then meant taking people to the polls around Christmas. Nobody on the opposition side, it seems, wants to be seen as responsible for calling a Christmas election.
Already burned by the election dance he had last spring, Harper was reluctant to bring down the government in such a fashion. So he made an excuse: I won’t bring down the government unless I have Jack Layton’s support. Meaning: if things go wrong, it’s Jack Layton’s fault. Jack then milked his renewed prominence in parliament for a while longer, but then decided — as Warren Kinsella recommended — to get out of Martin’s “blast radius”. An election was coming in February at the latest, so now was the time to extricate himself from his lucrative deal with the Liberals. But he wisely decided against doing Harper’s dirtywork, remaining coy over whether he’d cooperate on a motion of non-confidence.
Harper pressed the matter, offering the NDP the Conservative’s first Opposition Day in parliament (November 15) to bring in their own motion of non-confidence (“I don’t want to force an election; you force an election!”), but Layton refused to play Harper’s patsy. But then Layton came back with the brilliant plan: introduce a non-binding motion during the NDP’s Opposition Day demanding that Paul Martin call an election during the first week of January, rather than thirty days after the release of Gomery’s second report.
What the writer didn't know or didn't mention is that there was an agreement between Harper and Layton that Harper would support Layton's motion and in exchange Layton would support Harper's motion of non-confidence rather than making another deal with the Liberals. The number of votes didn't matter to Harper. He didn't want to wear the responsibility of taking down the government alone. He wanted Layton to share that responsibility. So, Layton agreed to second the motion of non-confidence. Without that agreement Harper would not have introduced the non-confidence motion.
I was paying attention at the time and Layton himself bragged about his part in toppling the Martin government. He was proud of it. It was huge news at the time.
Layton seconded the motion. That he couldn't defeat it when it passed is immaterial because there would not have been a vote without his direct participation in making it happen.
Quote:In my opinion the majority of women who become involved in prostitution are harmed by it or regret it.That's a funny thing to include. People do, and are allowed to do, all sorts of things they regret.
Google "tattoo removal" if you don't believe me.
The harms survivors of prostitution suffer can't be removed as easily as tattoos.
Ya, I think my point was that the freedom to make choices in our lives also includes the freedom to make choices that we might regret.
you think some women have a legit choice?
and what happens after isn't even cllose to a trivial emotion like regret.
I'll save any potential response to your specific points (such as it's only a small percentage of women who want to do it - so what?) for later in the weekend when I hopefully have more time.
So that has to be balanced against potential harm to many more.
"Some people are going to do this anyway. It would probably be better if they didn't, but it doesn't harm anyone else if they do, so what right do we have to impose a moral judgement (marijuana/prostitution is wrong) on them?
The argument against marijuana isn't moral. It's based on false information.
The argument against prostitution isn't moral. It's based on protecting women from harm. There are people who would be happy to work for less than minimum wage but it's illegal based on the greater harm of allowing it.
Likewise, legitimizing prostitution in my view causes greater harm to more women than it protects.
Further, more harm is caused to the individuals by the prohibition of the act then by the act itself.
There is zero evidence of that, only conflicting anecdotal accounts.
Lastly, by legalizing the (product or service) the government can regulate/license the sale of (product or service), generating revenues to help offset the cost of public education about the dangers of (product or service) and treatment/rehab, etc
Making money off of harming women is not my idea of an appropriate government source of revenue no matter how they use it.
We are talking about women not inanimate drugs.
I want marijuana to be legal because there was never any reason to make it illegal in the first place and I see no reason for the revenue to be dedicated to education and rehab although a small portion would be appropriate.
Harder drugs that are created in labs should be decriminalized for users but I want the labs to remain illegal.
while simultaneously dealing a blow to organized crime by eliminating a revenue stream.
Yeah, that was the plan in Amsterdam. Didn't work out that way so they have bought back 1/3 of the red light district.
The intent is not to legitimize (product or service), it's simply to reduce the overall harm caused to society.
Except in the case of prostitution expanding the industry means more women are subject to it's harms and there is no test to check which women will or will not be harmed by becoming involved. It's a crap shoot.
I can't think of another job in which you are worth more the less experienced you are.
Sean in Ottawa wrote:Pondering wrote:
I voted for Layton and contributed to the Quebec Orange Crush despite what he did in 2005.
That again? You have got to be kidding.
We covered the fact that when the Martin government fell, the NDP had already lost the balance of power and could not have stopped that from happening. This is not opinion. You are arguing against objective fact. Simple math.
I ignore most of your stuff these days but this is straight up dishonesty on an issue that has been so well discussed that you cannot claim ignorance.
(snip) Without Layton there would have been no confidence vote for Martin to lose.
(snip) the vote wouldn't have happened without Layton's deal with Harper.
I called bullshit on this before-- prove it.
you think some women have a legit choice?
Yes, I do. Because no matter what a miserable choice you may believe it to be, not all women have it. And most men don't either.
No matter how much I (or an old, or unappealing, or religious woman) might wish we could just choose sex work for some easy cash, we reasaonably can't. And if we don't die without that option, why would those who do have that option die if they don't take it?
Pondering wrote:Sean in Ottawa wrote:That again? You have got to be kidding.
We covered the fact that when the Martin government fell, the NDP had already lost the balance of power and could not have stopped that from happening. This is not opinion. You are arguing against objective fact. Simple math.
I ignore most of your stuff these days but this is straight up dishonesty on an issue that has been so well discussed that you cannot claim ignorance.
We also covered the fact that Jack Layton made a deal with Harper to second the motion for the confidence vote. Without Layton there would have been no confidence vote for Martin to lose.
You are being disingenuous to focus solely on the vote numbers ignoring the fact that the vote wouldn't have happened without Layton's deal with Harper.
Back in 2005/2006 I didn't pay that much attention to politics even during the election (although I did vote green). We should probably stay reasonably on topic. but could someone provide me some links to information on what exactly happened?
I was just on another board where this line "The Liberals and Conservatives have made childcare promises for decades – and failed to deliver." from the NDP platform is getting ripped almost as bad as the LPC gun policy, due to Layton apparently pulling the plug on Martin's minority - after Martin had the 5 year, $5 billion dollar deal signed by all 10 provinces. Nobody has contested this claim yet. When you say "Layton no longer held the balance of power" is this because of floor crossings? How could a party lose the balance of power mid-term? And I'm purely guessing here, but I'm assuming that the CPC+BQ must have outnumbered the LPC+NDP, so if two leaders needed to agree on a vote of non-confidence, couldn't Harper have just had the leader of the BQ at the time (still Duceppe?) second the motion if Layton refused?
I explained this at length with a blow by blow history. But yes, floor crossings:
In early 2005 the NDP pushed for significant NDP priorities. These went through only thanks to Belinda Stronach being induced to cross the floor and the dramatic vote of a dying Chuck Cadman for the budget..
The sponsorship scandal broke and worsened as the eyar went on: three Liberals crossed the floor with two of them saying they would vote against the Martin government specifically due to the scandal. (The third voted with Martin.)
At the time the NDP had an MP that lost the nomination and sat as an independent. She also vowed to vote against Martin and was unreachable to Layton.
Layton tried to negotiate a new arrangement for the 2006 budget with Martin -- focusing on health care. Martin told Layton to buzz off because he no longer had the votes.
Harper, the BQ and these independents had declared that they were going to defeat the government. Harper was attacking the NDP daily for propping up Harper saying his party should be defeated as well. Layton tried to negotiate for time to delay the fall of the government but Martin would have nothing to do with that.
The idea that Harper needed the NDP was false -- the BQ and even Liberal defectors were committed to bring down the government as well as Harper. In fact Harper would ahve preferred the NDP not support the motion as he clearly intended to use the NDP support of Martin fro earlier in the year in the campaign -- and he said so. Harper did not need a seconder from another party but he likely would have used one of the Liberal defectors (who left the Liberal caucus due to the scandal and vowed to vote down the government) if Layton had not cooperated.
Layton, seeing there was nothing left to do moved to distance himself and supported the non-confidence motions.
The non confidence motion was passed 171-133. The NDP had 18 members. You can see if they had voted with Martin the Liberals would have been defeated 153-151. The Liberals had 133 members but one was the Speaker -- however, one independent Liberal voted with Martin. there were two vacancies including Cadman who had voted with the government before but had later died.
It is an absolute lie to suggest that Layton and the NDP could have prevented the defeat of Martin. There was blood in the water and both the BQ and the Conservatives wanted the defeat and were not going to stop given they had been trying to defeat the government for a year. Only with the death of Cadman and two Liberal and one NDP defection to the side of defeating the government did that become possible. As I say, when Layton saw it was inevitable and heard the rhetoric from Harper about the NDP protecting Liberal sleaze, he put a knife into the already dead body of the Liberal government. It is false to say the NDP took the Liberals down. It is accurate to say they were brought down by their own defections due to the sponsorship scandal.
After the defeat, there were reports that the Liberals planned to use this defeat against the NDP by blaming them for it in spite of the reality of the numbers. Layton's enthusiasm -- designed to create distance was to be used against him. Liberals like Pondering have flogged this talking point ever since. However, the Liberal war rooms stopped when people rightly pointed out that it was bullshit. However, some disaffected New Democrats and journalists either through sloppiness or design neglect to remember all these facts and the numbers and repeat it to this day.
This should be a sticky -- thanks to Pondering we keep coming back to this even though the facts are completely against her.
I have in the past named each of the independents and specific dates but this is the summary.
Quote:you think some women have a legit choice?Yes, I do. Because no matter what a miserable choice you may believe it to be, not all women have it. And most men don't either.
No matter how much I (or an old, or unappealing, or religious woman) might wish we could just choose sex work for some easy cash, we reasaonably can't. And if we don't die without that option, why would those who do have that option die if they don't take it?
you have not existed in BC since the advent of the BC Liberals and their racist income assistance policies.
there's no choice if you have no money, are FN's and want to keep your kids.
I'll stick with Brian Topp's version of what happened.
Bottom of page 193
https://books.google.ca/books?id=3HvV4650IG8C&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=layt...
Return to Ottawa (1997–2011)
Topp co-ordinated the war room for the federal NDP during the 1997 and 2004 elections. He was the party's national campaign director in 2006 and 2008. Topp served as a senior adviser to federal leader Jack Layton during the 2011 federal election campaign,[14][20] and was intimately involved in negotiating the attempted Liberal-NDP coalition agreement during the 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute.[17] Topp wrote about this experience in his memoir, How We Almost Gave the Tories the Boot: The Inside Story Behind the Coalition.[1]
I explained this at length with a blow by blow history. But yes, floor crossings:
In early 2005 the NDP pushed for significant NDP priorities. These went through only thanks to Belinda Stronach being induced to cross the floor and the dramatic vote of a dying Chuck Cadman for the budget..
The sponsorship scandal broke and worsened as the eyar went on: three Liberals crossed the floor with two of them saying they would vote against the Martin government specifically due to the scandal. (The third voted with Martin.)
At the time the NDP had an MP that lost the nomination and sat as an independent. She also vowed to vote against Martin and was unreachable to Layton.
Layton tried to negotiate a new arrangement for the 2006 budget with Martin -- focusing on health care. Martin told Layton to buzz off because he no longer had the votes.
Harper, the BQ and these independents had declared that they were going to defeat the government. Harper was attacking the NDP daily for propping up Harper saying his party should be defeated as well. Layton tried to negotiate for time to delay the fall of the government but Martin would have nothing to do with that.
The idea that Harper needed the NDP was false -- the BQ and even Liberal defectors were committed to bring down the government as well as Harper. In fact Harper would ahve preferred the NDP not support the motion as he clearly intended to use the NDP support of Martin fro earlier in the year in the campaign -- and he said so. Harper did not need a seconder from another party but he likely would have used one of the Liberal defectors (who left the Liberal caucus due to the scandal and vowed to vote down the government) if Layton had not cooperated.
Layton, seeing there was nothing left to do moved to distance himself and supported the non-confidence motions.
The non confidence motion was passed 171-133. The NDP had 18 members. You can see if they had voted with Martin the Liberals would have been defeated 153-151. The Liberals had 133 members but one was the Speaker -- however, one independent Liberal voted with Martin. there were two vacancies including Cadman who had voted with the government before but had later died.
It is an absolute lie to suggest that Layton and the NDP could have prevented the defeat of Martin. There was blood in the water and both the BQ and the Conservatives wanted the defeat and were not going to stop given they had been trying to defeat the government for a year. Only with the death of Cadman and two Liberal and one NDP defection to the side of defeating the government did that become possible. As I say, when Layton saw it was inevitable and heard the rhetoric from Harper about the NDP protecting Liberal sleaze, he put a knife into the already dead body of the Liberal government. It is false to say the NDP took the Liberals down. It is accurate to say they were brought down by their own defections due to the sponsorship scandal.
After the defeat, there were reports that the Liberals planned to use this defeat against the NDP by blaming them for it in spite of the reality of the numbers. Layton's enthusiasm -- designed to create distance was to be used against him. Liberals like Pondering have flogged this talking point ever since. However, the Liberal war rooms stopped when people rightly pointed out that it was bullshit. However, some disaffected New Democrats and journalists either through sloppiness or design neglect to remember all these facts and the numbers and repeat it to this day.
This should be a sticky -- thanks to Pondering we keep coming back to this even though the facts are completely against her.
I have in the past named each of the independents and specific dates but this is the summary.
This is fine. Thank you.
Cody87 wrote:And I'm purely guessing here, but I'm assuming that the CPC+BQ must have outnumbered the LPC+NDP, so if two leaders needed to agree on a vote of non-confidence, couldn't Harper have just had the leader of the BQ at the time (still Duceppe?) second the motion if Layton refused?I'm not sure and don't feel like looking it up but Harper had tried and failed to bring down Martin earlier that year but the NDP made a deal with Martin instead. Layton later referred to this as "the first NDP budget" which left Harper, a relatively unknown entity at the time, associated with just the Bloc.
Harper was the new leader of a new party created from the remains of the Reform, Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives. He did not want to be seen as cosying up to the BQ. He wasn't willing to present another non-confidence vote without the assurance that the NDP would vote with him, not because he would have lost the vote, but because he didn't want the narrative to be that he and Duceppe brought down the government. Martin would have been able to use that against him in the subsequent election.
Harper and Layton made a two part deal.
http://bowjamesbow.ca/2005/11/10/brilliant.shtml
To understand the brilliance of NDP leader Jack Layton’s proposed motion to require Paul Martin to call an election in January instead of next week, you have to understand the tennis match that had been going on between Prime Minister Martin and Opposition Leader Harper in the lead-up.
As the (minor) bombshell of the first Gomery report struck, the Conservatives had to consider whether to try and bring down the government now or wait until Martin’s promised election call in February. Thanks to more democratic trickery on the part of the Liberals, Opposition Days — days when the oppostiion could most easily introduce a motion of non-confidence — were pushed back to next week, meaning that forcing an election then meant taking people to the polls around Christmas. Nobody on the opposition side, it seems, wants to be seen as responsible for calling a Christmas election.
Already burned by the election dance he had last spring, Harper was reluctant to bring down the government in such a fashion. So he made an excuse: I won’t bring down the government unless I have Jack Layton’s support. Meaning: if things go wrong, it’s Jack Layton’s fault. Jack then milked his renewed prominence in parliament for a while longer, but then decided — as Warren Kinsella recommended — to get out of Martin’s “blast radius”. An election was coming in February at the latest, so now was the time to extricate himself from his lucrative deal with the Liberals. But he wisely decided against doing Harper’s dirtywork, remaining coy over whether he’d cooperate on a motion of non-confidence.
Harper pressed the matter, offering the NDP the Conservative’s first Opposition Day in parliament (November 15) to bring in their own motion of non-confidence (“I don’t want to force an election; you force an election!”), but Layton refused to play Harper’s patsy. But then Layton came back with the brilliant plan: introduce a non-binding motion during the NDP’s Opposition Day demanding that Paul Martin call an election during the first week of January, rather than thirty days after the release of Gomery’s second report.
What the writer didn't know or didn't mention is that there was an agreement between Harper and Layton that Harper would support Layton's motion and in exchange Layton would support Harper's motion of non-confidence rather than making another deal with the Liberals. The number of votes didn't matter to Harper. He didn't want to wear the responsibility of taking down the government alone. He wanted Layton to share that responsibility. So, Layton agreed to second the motion of non-confidence. Without that agreement Harper would not have introduced the non-confidence motion.
I was paying attention at the time and Layton himself bragged about his part in toppling the Martin government. He was proud of it. It was huge news at the time.
Layton seconded the motion. That he couldn't defeat it when it passed is immaterial because there would not have been a vote without his direct participation in making it happen.
This post makes the rather dubious contention that Layton's agreement meant that the Martin government was defeated a few weeks earlier than otherwise. It does no more than that. It does not defend the ludicrous notion that Layton was in any way responsible for the demise of the Martin government.
First Harper and Layton did have a reason to cooperate -- Layton got the distance he needed from the inevitable by participating and Harper got extra cover for doing the deed a few weeks earlier. But this was not causation: Harper wanted Layton in the vote but there is absolutely no indication that he would not have gone without it. They both got something useful but the vote would have passed and would have passed right then.
The trouble with Pondering's BS on this topic is that while Harper did find Layton's participation useful to go before Christmas rather than after, there is no indication that not having it would have stopped Harper from going anyway. Plan 'B' was to use the cover of Martin government defectors. Harper had already pointed to the BQ. And secondly, even if you bought the story Pondering is selling it amounted to a matter of days. Everyone who was awake a the time knew the government would be defeated. Had Harper not gone before Christmas he would have gone as early as he could in the new year (if you buy the crap Pondering is selling).
The programs that the NDP pushed the Liberals to bring in and Pondering now blames them for defeating -- would have been defeated well before implementation, only a few weeks later. So as I say if you buy Pondering's garbage at best you have a difference of a few weeks in terms of the timing of the non-confidence vote. As it was -- the timing of the election date would have been unchanged because the campaign was merely extended.
Again -- Pondering is straight up lying when she claims that the NDP are the reason the Kelowna Accord, Childcare and other programs were lost. She keeps up with this shit because the explanation is complicated and many people do not remember.
I used to argue with Pondering -- but this is the debate that drilled the hole in the bottom of the bucket where any respect for her was kept. It is this dishonesty that led to my reactions to her ever since -- and her personal attacks on me raised them to a point of nastiness on both sides. I would rather be forced to leave this place than show any respect for her after this dishonest argument that she has kept going for more than a year now.
This should be a sticky -- thanks to Pondering we keep coming back to this even though the facts are completely against her.
I have in the past named each of the independents and specific dates but this is the summary.
So aside from the actual vote count do you have any links supporting your interpretation of events and your conclusions which run counter to Brian Topp's conclusion? It seems to me he was in a much better position to judge the degree of Layton's responsibility.
I'll stick with Brian Topp's version of what happened.
Bottom of page 193
https://books.google.ca/books?id=3HvV4650IG8C&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=layt...
Return to Ottawa (1997–2011)
Topp co-ordinated the war room for the federal NDP during the 1997 and 2004 elections. He was the party's national campaign director in 2006 and 2008. Topp served as a senior adviser to federal leader Jack Layton during the 2011 federal election campaign,[14][20] and was intimately involved in negotiating the attempted Liberal-NDP coalition agreement during the 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute.[17] Topp wrote about this experience in his memoir, How We Almost Gave the Tories the Boot: The Inside Story Behind the Coalition.[1]
The Math proved it wrong.
Brian Topp's comments do not beat the basic math of the moment.
Topp was trying ot be a little cute in claiming responsibility for what the NDP did not control.
The NDP (including Topp) played politics to their best advantage. The reality is with less than 10% of the seats in the house they were trying to pretend relevance even when it did not really exist. The Liberals, liars and cheats that they are, decided to take advantage of this over-reaching on the part of the NDP to extend this to saying the NDP is responsible for the loss of key programs the NDP had forced into being.
However most Liberals have had the good judgement to back down from this particular canard as it is compeltely not supportable. Their online trolls keep the thing alive.
If you use this against the parliamentary record, then are you willing to accept any stupid comment from any Liberal ahead of any facts proving otherwise? this could be fun.
Sean in Ottawa wrote:This should be a sticky -- thanks to Pondering we keep coming back to this even though the facts are completely against her.
I have in the past named each of the independents and specific dates but this is the summary.
So aside from the actual vote count do you have any links supporting your interpretation of events and your conclusions which run counter to Brian Topp's conclusion? It seems to me he was in a much better position to judge the degree of Layton's responsibility.
Alrady posted here many of them.
And in this universe math does matter. The actual vote count you claim is meaningless is actually the most significant point that drove the rest of the discussion.
Had the NDP enough votes to prop up Martin -- He would have agreed to sit with Layton and they woudl ahve worked out a deal -- just as they did before. The math was the inevitability. The inevitability means that those programs were gone.
How the parties decided to play the politics -- each struggling not to have it blow up in their hands is a detail. The reality was the Martin government was over. Only Liberals who can't count fantasize that Martin could have survived with NDP help to do anything. And Liberals who can count, but were willing to lie, kept the story going.
So Sean, please respond to Brian Topp's claim. Accuse him of BSing and dishonesty. It seems to me the personal attacks ALWAYS begin with you attacking me rather than focusing on the arguments presented.
I quote Wikipedia, the Star, The Globe and Mail, Layton himself, Brian Topp, all of which you ignore or call biased. It seems to me you use personal attack and unsupported narrative to obfuscate.
My sin isn't lying, it's being right. Whether or not the NDP deserved credit for bringing down Martin they certainly claimed credit and never denied any of the accounts giving them credit for it from newspapers to articles to books.
How the parties decided to play the politics -- each struggling not to have it blow up in their hands is a detail. The reality was the Martin government was over. Only Liberals who can't count fantasize that Martin could have survived with NDP help to do anything. And Liberals who can count, but were willing to lie, kept the story going.
So you are saying that Brian Topp is lying, or just playing politics, that Layton was just posturing, pretending that his support mattered when it didn't, that Laxter has no clue what was going on within the NDP.
The NDP actively took responsibility. No big long story about details and numbers and motivations can deny that.
For fuck sake Pondering two posts demanding I reposnd to what I have already many times.
The NDP inflated its self importance -- Topp was part of that. I do not like Topp and won't defend him.
Yes he was full of shit in that.
Martin also had said the NDP did not have the numbers and he wasn't lying that time.
Again, I rest my case, the last word is yours.
Honest to God, you people really need to get a life. Its the same three people having the same "certs is a candy mint, no certs is a breath mint" type argument for the last year or so - nothing ever changes, no one ever convinces anyone of anything and there are literally no more than three or four individuals that read this and there is never anything new. Don't Pondering and Sean and Art Cramer etc... ever get exhausted from this never ending pointless argument? Maybe you shyould all just agree to disagree and go roast a turkey!!
Well, Stockholm, in fairness this eruption was caused by a new babbler asking specifically about the 2005 non-confidence vote. Naturally, neither Pondering nor Sean wanted him/her to get only the other one's side of the story. By the way, I agree completely with Sean, and disagree completely with Pondering.
Honest to God, you people really need to get a life. Its the same three people having the same "certs is a candy mint, no certs is a breath mint" type argument for the last year or so - nothing ever changes, no one ever convinces anyone of anything and there are literally no more than three or four individuals that read this and there is never anything new. Don't Pondering and Sean and Art Cramer etc... ever get exhausted from this never ending pointless argument? Maybe you shyould all just agree to disagree and go roast a turkey!!
I ignore a lot of BS but this particular one -- the suggestion that the NDP were responsible for the end of Martin's government is not one I will not respond to. With respect, this is a major point and a lot more than what certs are. There are people who believe this and are shocked when they see the actual numbers.
Nicky
This is the SEVENTH time you have broken your promise.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep the PROMISE you made at the link below
http://rabble.ca/comment/1522906#comment-1522906
To a) Not to respond to any of my thread b) Ignore me
Thank you.
Terryt..l as you may know a unilateral offer without consideration is not enforcable.
You will also recall that I amended my offer not to comment on your posts if you submitted them all under a discrete heading entitled "Shameless Liberal Trolling" or similar title. Unfortunately you have not done so but have chosen instead to pollute numerous different topics with your nonsense.
I'm not the one that made a promise, YOU DID
So Nicky
For the EIGHTH time you have broken your promise.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep the PROMISE you made at the link below
http://rabble.ca/comment/1522906#comment-1522906
To a) Not to respond to any of my thread b) Ignore me
Thank you.
You have made the request. You are not getting the answer you wish. And now for goodness sake, stop polluting this and every other thread with the same post.
Nicky needs to put up or shut up. After all it was he who the promise, not me.
And he/ she has explained her/ his position. You may not like it and if you wish to continue to express that point of view private message her/ him and do not continue derailing this thread with these absurd repetitive posts.
Then he shouldn't respond to me, it is that simple.
So are you going to accept my offer Terryt...l? If not perhaps you should stop responding to me.
But terry towel you do not need to derail threads to get your message across. Private message Nicky and let the rest of us have done with this.
Nicky didn't write anything in blood, swear on a bible, or make a legal commitment. If I saved all the posts in which people swore off responding to me I am sure I would have at least 5 miscreants to chastise but why waste the time. All members have the right to respond to any post they choose to.
Teerryt..l, all ypou have to do is submit all of your posts to the topic "Shameful Liberal Trolling" and I will absolutely ignore you.
Then Nicky should have taken the high road to agree to disagree. & Nicky could have said something in the heat of the moment. That is fine. But the difference here is that he started a campaign on the rabble forum to get people to ignore me. Which gained no traction at all. It is one thing to say "I'm not talking to you again" to saying "I recommend that the rest of you (rabble) stop giving him oxygen." That is the difference. So I'm holding Nicky to his "promise" which broken about 8 times.
You are DEFLECTING. So I'm holding you to your FIRST offer, cause you were the one to start the pledge. Not me. You can't go back and try to rewite your pledge.
Pls keep your promise (which you yourself made) and ignore me. Thanks
Another DEFLECTION as you cannot keep your promises. Besides I'm not the one who said you should ignore my posts.
It was you.
So the question is why can't you keep your promises?
http://rabble.ca/comment/1522906#comment-1522906
Terrytowel I just caught up on this thread. May I have the last two minutes back?
I am not sure what you are trying to achieve but it is not helping you.
People in frustration with another often that they will ignore them and -- speaking for myself -- an effort is actually made. But unless you withdraw from the board these posts are part of the context and you find yourself responding anyway -- and you feel you ahve every right to respond to provocation.
It is unfair to be so obnoxious that you push someone to the point where they declare that they do not want to respond and then try to hold them to that. I don't mean to be nasty to you but you are the most repetative poster here and this is likely the biggest problem for you. I certainly would defend your right to say anything the first time but when you copy that same response to multiple threads people go bananas. In part you are saying your comment was so valuable that it -- in its 20th incarnation -- is more important than the effort someone makes to write something for the first time. Please stop repeating the same post.
Because you asked I will abide by your request. I should mention I have tried (not withstanding the back and forth with Nicky) not to repeat myself on this board lately.
Thanks -- I really think this is harming you so it will be better.
Like I have said, you are the voice of reason here on rabble.ca
And I'll will watch my repeating things. I have tried you know.
I don't, it's a false equivalency. In my opinion the majority of women who become involved in prostitution are harmed by it or regret it. There is definitely a portion of women who consider it a good profession that affords them a generous lifestyle, but I put it to you that those women will continue working as aways. No job this harmful and dangerous to so many women would be tolerated in any other field. Jobs such as firefighter, police officer, soldier, are tolerated because they rescue or defend us and for that they are generally honoured.
Part of bill C-36 references preventing the institutionalization of prostitution as an industry. Supporters reference New Zealand but even there it depends on how you define success. That battle has been fought in other threads. I highly recommend the sex worker's forum for counter arguments. In Ireland 90% of workers are from impoverished countries. Germany has similar numbers. I don't really see the benefit of turning Canada into a brothel for foreign workers even if they really really really want to do it. This is not a "job" that attracts many Canadian women. Nor is it something that many men want access to. Apparently the lifetime number for men who have ever accessed a prostitution is around 7% but if you ask how many did in the past year it drops to 1%. Presumably customers and workers are not one to one. That means the percentage of women who "want" this work is tiny. For that we would allow the blight of brothels that teach men sex is something that can be purchased. They can even choose race and other attributes. That demeans women and sex. Nothing could be more objectifying. If sex can be just a job, then wives should do it for their partners in the same sense that they do any other houseold chores. If we legitimize prostitution then it is just a chore. Rape is diffferentiated from simple assault for a reason.
I have not got access to my own computer tonight so I can't share links but to be fair you must hear both sides and so far the legitimization side has much louder voices. It's important to think of all the ramifications of having super brothels and what that says about all women not just those who work them.
This is a highly respected publication.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-d...
Even if it only got a tenth of that bad in Canada it is a terrible thing to open our door to and to profit from.
I believe it is the executive. A couple of conventions back, under Mulcair, 6 ridings submitted marijuana legalization as a resolution to be voted on. The executive changed it to a resolution recommitting to decriminalization. The NDP has access to experts on every aspect of marijuana so they clearly didn't want to know. If Mulcair can totally hijack the NDP and force it to follow his lead, like Harper has his followers, then the NDP is not much of a progressive party and definitely not to be trusted with the reins of the nation if they are that easily browbeaten.
Yes, or rather whatever principles he has, they don't make up for his other characteristics. There are moment I remember that clarified Trudeau and Mulcair. When the Quebec Soccer Federation banned sports hijabs from high school teams Trudeau condemned it instantly while Mulcair was more diplomatic and sent a letter to the World Soccer Federation. The Canadian Soccer Federation was ready to expel Quebec if they didn't modify their decision. I preferred Trudeau's instant condemnation. He is a man of conviction. He has also called prostitution violence against women which tells me he understands it from my perspective and is supportive of the Swedish model. I was disappointed that he voted against C 36 but I know the only way he would likely amend it would be to remove all penalties from women regardless of their location. I also like his robust defence of the Clarity Act.
This opens up a huge can of worms. First Nations would have to be included in negotiations and would be free to secede from Quebec. Their treaties are with Canada. They could even decide on independence. That's what I would do. But their borders do not follow provincial borders, so once we go down that road the whole separation thing could destabilize the entire country. I believe Canada is much more than the sum of its parts. I don't believe there is any real risk of another referendum so to some extent it is all very theoretical. On the other hand if you read up about the 1995 referendum on wikipedia you will discover there was vote tampering and it was never fully investigated. The difference between yes and no was 1%. The odd thing is the Sherbrooke Declaration isn't particularly popular in Quebec.
Absolutely. I believe he will keep is marijuana promise because it will provide him with bonus taxes and stimulate the economy. Not just recreational, but medical research and industrial and food products from the oil fabric from the rest. It has even been incorporated into cement. The Liberals have a habit of being a step ahead of general public opinion on changing social mores. It couldn't be easier to foresee where marijuana is going. Better to get their first. He will convene an all party committee and he favors ranked ballots which I also favor. The NDP favors MMP which I am not sold on.
Agreed, and I was really offended to hear what I consider right-wing arguments such as high taxes chasing professionals away and the importance of balanced budgets so as not to burden future generations. I find that especially damaging as activists work so hard to educate people away from that kind of thinking because it isn't true.
And what does that say about the party that they can be so easily controlled. I can't answer any more tonight but I will continue tomorrow night.
It was the week right after the Jiam Ghomeshi revelations. An mp approached Trudeau on the bus asking him if he had heard about an incident that was going around. He had not and she told him about it. He immediately set up a meeting between the Liberal and NDP party whips and the two MPs involved. There was also an NDP lawyer present as friend to one of the victims. At that meeting everyone was told that the information given would be used to decide how to proceed.
A week later, without even informing the Liberal caucus first, the two men were suspended pending further investigation. The NDP was given 2 hours notice. Trudeau said it was because he believed what he had heard which left him no choice but to act. The two men were not even told why they were being suspended other than misconduct. Trudeau said it was two MPs from another party. He asked the speaker of the house to set up an investigation and create a protocol for misconduct between MPs.
Mulcair accused Trudeau of revictimizing the women.
The speaker refused to set up an investigation unless the women were willing to make a formal complaint. Trudeau hired a human rights lawyer to investigate and present a confidential report. The men were permitted to review the report and did not contest it although they continued proclaiming their innocence.
Everything else was information released by the NDP including confirming that it was NDP MPs that had made the complaints.
In cases of domestic abuse the police lay charges regardless of whether or not the victims want charges laid while confidentiality is maintained. The names are never reported.
In my view knowing what the men had done Trudeau had no choice but to suspend the MPs. Unlike a normal employer the leader of the party has absolute power to expel a candidate from caucus. These men were lawmakers representing the Liberal party. It is the duty of the leader to dismiss such men from the party.
Trudeau gained a lot of respect from me for his prompt action. All too often such men are protected as Ghomeshi was protected by the women's unwillingness to make an "official" complaint.
These women are also lawmakers. The moment they told the leader of the Liberal party that two Liberal MPs had sexually victimized them it was official. Trudeau had every right to dismiss the men from caucus.
In my view the NDP was afraid the event would benefit Trudeau because he acted, so Mulcair accused him of revictimizing the women. For a full month the NDP released articles and gave interviews while the Liberals maintained silence.
Same here. I was part of the Orange Crush of 2011 but I didn't know about the Sherbrooke Declaration. I liked Mulcair for awhile but the more I got to know him the less I liked him. I think in his personal life he is probably a great guy but I don't like his politics.
I hope you are right that Mulcair is the problem but I don't think you are.
And you know this for a fact because you were personally in on all these discussions?
You have a right to your opinion about how Trudeau or Mulcair handled this, but to not only vicously attack anyone who disagreed with your interpretation and set yourself up as the moral arbiter of what was right and wrong in this situation is disgusting.
This is news to me. You've been on these boards for over 2 years, having been critical of the NDP and Mulcair from the start.
No, because it was all reported.
Who did I viciously attack? Everyone has a right to judge the right and wrong of this situation and to make a moral judgement and declare it. All of these people are political figures, lawmakers, party leaders, it is my duty to judge them. Everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions and to share them. I do feel very strongly about the abuse of women, being one myself. I am delighted that both men were expelled from the party and that after Oct. 19th neither will likely be MPs and I'm glad that it didn't take an "official" complaint for it to happen.
Trudeau never revealed any of the details, not even to the men who were accused. They complained publically that they couldn't defend themselves because they didn't know what they were being accused of.
I wasn't born the day I joined the board. I existed before then and I have often stated that I didn't see Mulcair as angry. I agreed he did a great job cross-examining Harper on Duffy. Early on I didn't like his handling of various issues but I didn't dislike his public persona. I have no respect for the way in which he handled the suspension of the Liberal MPs. He crossed a line and so did Nicole Turmel and Megan Leslie.
I believe the victims gave Mulcair permission to accuse Trudeau publically of revictimizing the women but I don't believe that they asked him do. I think he, or an NDP representative passed the statement by the women asking if they objected to them using it.
Yeah is Pondering claiming she was once something other than a Liberal? Her first posts were scathing criticisms of Layton for bringing down Martin in 2006. She has no shame. Completely absurd.
I voted for Layton and contributed to the Quebec Orange Crush despite what he did in 2005. I voted for Dion. This is only the second time I can recall voting Liberal.
You have no shame with your perpetual personal attacks. You don't get to define who I am. Spending your time telling people not to respond to me and talking about me tells me all I need to know about you.
That again? You have got to be kidding.
We covered the fact that when the Martin government fell, the NDP had already lost the balance of power and could not have stopped that from happening. This is not opinion. You are arguing against objective fact. Simple math.
I ignore most of your stuff these days but this is straight up dishonesty on an issue that has been so well discussed that you cannot claim ignorance.
We also covered the fact that Jack Layton made a deal with Harper to second the motion for the confidence vote. Without Layton there would have been no confidence vote for Martin to lose.
You are being disingenuous to focus solely on the vote numbers ignoring the fact that the vote wouldn't have happened without Layton's deal with Harper.
Back in 2005/2006 I didn't pay that much attention to politics even during the election (although I did vote green). We should probably stay reasonably on topic. but could someone provide me some links to information on what exactly happened?
I was just on another board where this line "The Liberals and Conservatives have made childcare promises for decades – and failed to deliver." from the NDP platform is getting ripped almost as bad as the LPC gun policy, due to Layton apparently pulling the plug on Martin's minority - after Martin had the 5 year, $5 billion dollar deal signed by all 10 provinces. Nobody has contested this claim yet. When you say "Layton no longer held the balance of power" is this because of floor crossings? How could a party lose the balance of power mid-term? And I'm purely guessing here, but I'm assuming that the CPC+BQ must have outnumbered the LPC+NDP, so if two leaders needed to agree on a vote of non-confidence, couldn't Harper have just had the leader of the BQ at the time (still Duceppe?) second the motion if Layton refused?
I'll save any potential response to your specific points (such as it's only a small percentage of women who want to do it - so what?) for later in the weekend when I hopefully have more time. But while actually the smaller arguments are not identical, the major crux of the legalization argument for both is: "Some people are going to do this anyway. It would probably be better if they didn't, but it doesn't harm anyone else if they do, so what right do we have to impose a moral judgement (marijuana/prostitution is wrong) on them? Further, more harm is caused to the individuals by the prohibition of the act then by the act itself. Lastly, by legalizing the (product or service) the government can regulate/license the sale of (product or service), generating revenues to help offset the cost of public education about the dangers of (product or service) and treatment/rehab, etc, while simultaneously dealing a blow to organized crime by eliminating a revenue stream. The intent is not to legitimize (product or service), it's simply to reduce the overall harm caused to society."