Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Mackay...

  1. #1
    Find what you love, and let it kill you...

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Top of the mountain
    Posts
    959
    MacKay a Canadian tea bagger? Does he pray before he does the dirty thing ? Again we dint vote for him or Harper but we can pressure the government on other issue like this one ! More we dig more I bet we will find his gimp kit !
    GOHABSGO

  3. #3
    I read one article that really convinced me that he is a real, genuine asshole.

    He was asked a circumstance in which a prostitute might be arrested for soliciting near where a minor might be present.

    The example he chose was a "pack" of underaged prostitutes working together. Apparently they all "corrupt" one another and could be arrested for soliciting in the presence of a minor.

    The Department of Justice (I may not be using the correct Canadian term) later clarified this comments he made at the press conference were not accurate and this would not be a circumstance warranting arrest of the women under the proposed new law. But a number of things about his off the cuff comment are disturbing:

    Rarely does one encounter a group of under aged prostitutes working together. Hopefully none of us ever encounter underaged prostitutes. But does the asshole think that when he sees a group of high school girls at the mall who smile back and throw a little candy to the many older guys who glance at them are a pack of prostitutes? Of all the examples he could have chosen as to when a provider might be arrested, how the hell did had envision that one? And he calls us perverts.

    Assuming, unrealistically, that there are such packs of under aged prostitutes working together in Canada, why would he possibly think that is a situation warranting arrest? Even in the moralistic United States there are several states in which a juvenile working as a prostitute is exempt from criminal prosecution because she is viewed as a victim. While not all states have such a statutory provision, most prosecutors make a subjective decision to not bring charges against the girl. Under what circumstance could an arrest be beneficial? If Mackay is sincere about his desire that service providers leave this industry, an arrest of an underaged prostitute would cause her difficulties with future employment outside of sex work in her adult life. And if this mythical pack of juvenile prostitutes did exist, no reasonable person would believe that any of them were somehow corrupted by another juvenile prostitute who was doing the same line of work.

    I realize that any discussion of underaged prostitution makes all of us feel uncomfortable. But my point is that Mackay was the one that dreamed up this example as an example of when a woman might be arrested, and I am quite certain that while none of us wants to see a minor working as a prostitute, we would be even more disapproving of a police decision to arrest that underaged prostitute and burden her with a criminal record because of the existence of a co-worker who is a minor.

    The way he thinks gives me a lot of concern. Here is the link

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pete...sion-1.2679800

    Let me know if I have misread or overanalyzed his comments. He kind of reminds me of our wonderful U.S. Kenneth Star.

  4. #4
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,145
    He is a jerkwad, sort of the Canadian equivalent of Ted Cruz.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    Papa a raison.

    The same story in English for our french-impaired friends:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06...n_5526436.html
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    The example he chose was a "pack" of underaged prostitutes working together. Apparently they all "corrupt" one another and could be arrested for soliciting in the presence of a minor....The Department of Justice (I may not be using the correct Canadian term) later clarified this comments he made at the press conference were not accurate and this would not be a circumstance warranting arrest of the women under the proposed new law.
    According to what Justice Min. officials said, they could not be arrested just for being in each other's presence. But they could be arrested for working somewhere where you can be expected to find children (such as a mall). Of course I don't know if I trust what they say. To me the law could be interpreted by police and prosecuters in just about any way to do what they want.

    Also, anyone can be arrested for stopping or impeding traffic for the purpose of selling sex, so they can arrest minors for that too.

    It's the basis of the rescue industry. It's okay to do anything to ''victims'', so long as you get them to stop this job.
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Le Chablis, Saint - Jacques
    Posts
    3,622
    Mackay is a douchebag of epic proporstions, if you were to look up the word douchebag in the dictionary you would see a picture of Peter Mckay.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=douchebag

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Siocnarf View Post
    According to what Justice Min. officials said, they could not be arrested just for being in each other's presence. But they could be arrested for working somewhere where you can be expected to find children (such as a mall). Of course I don't know if I trust what they say. To me the law could be interpreted by police and prosecuters in just about any way to do what they want.

    Also, anyone can be arrested for stopping or impeding traffic for the purpose of selling sex, so they can arrest minors for that too.

    It's the basis of the rescue industry. It's okay to do anything to ''victims'', so long as you get them to stop this job.
    I agree with your summary. But do you also find it interesting that Mackay came up with his hypothetical example and that the Department of Justice had to clarify? I find a person's unrehearsed initial response to a question to be most indicative of his true feelings. He hates sex workers of all ages and he hates johns. Any "rescuing" is just a term he puts out in press releases for propaganda.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    Yes, and another bit I just noticed from your link:

    ''There is nothing in the new bill that would permit police to charge a prostitute for selling his or her services from home if children live there. The prostitution bill contains a series of exceptions to the "material benefit" offence, including legitimate living arrangements, which cover people who live with sex workers such as spouses, roommates or children.''


    It seems they are confusing two different provisions: communicating in a place where you have children & the ''material benefit''. This material benefit provision says the children are allowed to benefit from the money their parent earns. It does not say the woman has a right to work in the same place where her children live.

    During debates in the house of commons one politician said newspaper would not be criminalized for advertisements, because third parties are allowed to provide their services for a normal, non-exploitive fee. Once again they are confusing two different provisions: material benefit is one thing. Advertisement for someone else would be illegal regardless. Even if you provide free advertisement it would be illegal.

    I can't say if these confusions are just from their own ignorance or if they are willingly twisting things so that people won't look at it too closely.
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    I read one article that really convinced me that he is a real, genuine asshole.
    Funny, I have read several. Lol

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by legmann View Post
    Funny, I have read several. Lol

  12. #12
    When the Reform party and the Progressive Conservative party were hopelessly out of government, Mackay made a deal at a leadership convention with a strong contender for his position in the PCs never to merge the two parties ever. Once he got the deal and won what he wanted, he promptly reneged (ie doublecrossed) on his "deal" with the other hopeful and entered into merger discussions which eventually gave us the Conservative party. Mackay is one of the sleaziest politicians imho.

  13. #13
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,145
    It disappoints me that the Canadians have elected such a person to be their Attorney General. He is clearly engaged in electioneering for his political party and everything that I have seen and heard leads me to conclude that notwithstanding the idiocy of some of the legislation he is proposing and the complete lack of any analysis as to how it is proposed to be enforced, his opposition is very weak and not doing a good job of standing up to him. I listened to the debates in the House of Commons and nobody who spoke mounted any kind of meaningful challenge to Mackay. What I saw does not speak well of your elected representatives in parliament.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    It's not just the fault of the opposition. The government passed a motion putting a very short time limit on the debates, so there would be as little discussion as possible on the matter. They have done this more than 70 times already for other bills. Because they have a majority they can get away with just about anything. Even in committees, members of oppositions are overruled during witness interviews and such. And even if the opposition manages to propose some amendments to bills, the Cons can just vote them down. Fortunately, we still have the supreme court.

    The committee hearings for C-36 is supposed be on July 7. I'm curious to see how it's going to go, even if it's moot.
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Between a rock and a hard place
    Posts
    225
    Une tempête dans un verre d'eau!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •