Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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?

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

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.

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 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.

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.  

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..."